Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Ok, this is scaryFollow

#102 Mar 08 2013 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Maybe I missed this in an earlier post/thread, but:

For the record, gbaji, are you a gun owner and if so, do you have a CC permit?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Why would that matter?
I was simply curious; I suspect the answer would give me some insight into your position as well.

Why so defensive over a simple question?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#103 Mar 08 2013 at 7:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm just building strawmen here to noodle out your thought process. Not really trying to convince you of anything so much as am just curious to how the right-wing of the country views these issues. It's hard to get a good handle on that information if you don't make arguments and ask questions.


Fair enough. Learned anything?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I suspect if you were in such a situation, you'd care a lot whether the shooter was the only armed person in the area or not.

Except in all likelihood I'll never be in this situation, none of us will. If I am, I doubt I'll even know how many people have guns, just that I want to get myself and my family as far away as I can as fast as possible.


Sure. But if your odds of doing that are increased because someone else in the crowd pulls out a pistol and starts shooting back at the shooter, I can pretty much guarantee your response will be to thank god/whatever that guy was there, and was armed, and choose to intervene.

Quote:
You can't spend your life worrying about things that have such a small percentage chance of happening.


Tell that to Obama and the Dems when they push for increased gun control in the wake of a shooting like Newtown. I don't think it's fair to dismiss my responses to their proposals by downplaying the odds of a shooting occurring in the first place. My position is that *if* we're going to be worried about these kinds of shootings, then lets be rational about what we propose and make good decisions rather than knee jerk reactions based on irrational fears.

Quote:
Or you can, but I think you should be wearing a shiny hat at that point. Smiley: wink


Sure. Again, I'm not the one proposing new legislation in response to such rare and unlikely shooting events. I'm responding to those who are.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Mar 08 2013 at 7:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Maybe I missed this in an earlier post/thread, but:

For the record, gbaji, are you a gun owner and if so, do you have a CC permit?
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Why would that matter?
I was simply curious; I suspect the answer would give me some insight into your position as well.


Why? My position isn't based on my own personal status, and my personal status has no bearing on the validity of anything I write.

Quote:
Why so defensive over a simple question?


Not being defensive at all. Why would you think I am? You should argue the position, not the person. I suppose what you're calling "being defensive" is me not wanting to give fodder to those who'll try to use personal stuff as a counter. If I say I'm a gun owner with a CC permit, folks will dismiss my arguments on the basis of me being "one of those gun nuts". If I'm not a gun owner and/or don't have a CC permit, folks will dismiss my arguments because "it doesn't affect you, so why do you care?".

I choose not to participate in that little distraction at all. Well, except for this response, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Mar 08 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
He certainly doesn't have a CC permit or a gun, at least not legally. I cite his lack of knowledge on gun purchasing procedures and his state being a May Issue state.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 Mar 08 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
Fair enough. Learned anything?


Mostly minor stuff. I've heard all the arguments before, so that wasn't anything new. It's mostly getting past that point, down to the things people often assume are common knowledge when they start making these logical arguments. The right and left so rarely start with the same set of facts these days it's hard to figure out what presumptions come to the table. The wife is a hard-core liberal, so I have no problem getting that side. Sadly I left most of my gun-carrying buddies behind when I moved to a bigger town, so it's harder for me to understand that side at times.

gbaji wrote:
Sure. But if your odds of doing that are increased because someone else in the crowd pulls out a pistol and starts shooting back at the shooter, I can pretty much guarantee your response will be to thank god/whatever that guy was there, and was armed, and choose to intervene.

Increasing the odds of surviving something that's likely not going to happen doesn't really move the needle much for me.

gbaji wrote:
Tell that to Obama and the Dems when they push for increased gun control in the wake of a shooting like Newtown. I don't think it's fair to dismiss my responses to their proposals by downplaying the odds of a shooting occurring in the first place. My position is that *if* we're going to be worried about these kinds of shootings, then lets be rational about what we propose and make good decisions rather than knee jerk reactions based on irrational fears.

There's a reason I called it a knee-jerk reaction. Banning assault weapons doesn't seem like the best use of legislative time.

gbaji wrote:
Sure. Again, I'm not the one proposing new legislation in response to such rare and unlikely shooting events. I'm responding to those who are.

No, but you are reacting to it with some crazy vigor, which is almost as bad. Knee-jerk meets paranoia, as I said earlier.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#107 Mar 08 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
He certainly doesn't have a CC permit or a gun, at least not legally. I cite his lack of knowledge on gun purchasing procedures and his state being a May Issue state.


Lol. You're such an easy mark.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#108 Mar 08 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
You're such an easy mark.
If it makes you feel better about yourself.

Either way, I'm either right or you've been lying the whole time so win/win for me.

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Mar 08 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But if your odds of doing that are increased because someone else in the crowd pulls out a pistol and starts shooting back at the shooter, I can pretty much guarantee your response will be to thank god/whatever that guy was there, and was armed, and choose to intervene.

Increasing the odds of surviving something that's likely not going to happen doesn't really move the needle much for me.


Which doesn't constitute a good argument for not allowing concealed carry though, does it? Let's not forget that in the US, our starting point is a right to "keep and bear arms", from which we then limit said right if we have a strong enough justification. Only helping in a rare case isn't a good justification for restricting concealed carry. Which is more or less the argument I'm making here.

Quote:
There's a reason I called it a knee-jerk reaction. Banning assault weapons doesn't seem like the best use of legislative time.


And yet, we've had three threads that I can remember over the last couple months centering on that very thing (among other gun control related things). It's not like I just randomly started arguing about why we should loosen our concealed carry and gun-free-zone laws or anything. I'm not the one who decided that this was the time when "doing something" about gun violence was important. But, if other people are going to argue for what they think we should do, it's pretty selective to only single me out for responding with my opinion while giving everyone else a pass.

You want to observe people's behavior, motivation, and methodologies when posting, perhaps try turning that keen observation on yourself. It might shed some light.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Again, I'm not the one proposing new legislation in response to such rare and unlikely shooting events. I'm responding to those who are.

No, but you are reacting to it with some crazy vigor, which is almost as bad. Knee-jerk meets paranoia, as I said earlier.


I'm posting with "crazy vigor"? What does that mean? Every one of my posts is a response to a post someone else made. And aren't you being somewhat subjective? I mean, how am I supposed to respond? Someone posts something I disagree with, and I'm supposed to just ignore it? Make a joke? That seems like an "odd" expectation to apply to someone's posting. Would make for a boring forum too!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Mar 08 2013 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're such an easy mark.
If it makes you feel better about yourself.

Either way, I'm either right or you've been lying the whole time so win/win for me.


Or you've missed posts I've made in the past, or you've grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. Doesn't matter either way though. I just find it amusing that some of you spend so much more time trying to speculate about the person posting than you spend actually trying to understand what that person is saying. I just find that to be a very strange set of priorities.


I'll also note with some interest how the focus of this thread has shifted away from the argument itself and onto personal issues ever since I posted a set of data disproving a major claim being made. Silence about that and suddenly it's all "tell us about your childhood" or something. Hmmmm...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Mar 08 2013 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll also note with some interest how the focus of this thread has shifted away from the argument itself
Maybe if you actually used data and facts instead of rhetoric and fear fueled paranoia the original argument would be worth focusing on. I'll also note with no real interest at all how your focus has shifted to avoid answering the new topic. Bijou might appreciate an answer for confirmation, but considering your blatant spin it looks like I've nailed it so it isn't particularly necessary.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#112 Mar 08 2013 at 8:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll also note with some interest how the focus of this thread has shifted away from the argument itself
Maybe if you actually used data and facts instead of rhetoric and fear fueled paranoia the original argument would be worth focusing on.


You're kidding, right? I provided data for all European nations comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rates. I sorted that information and showed that there's no correlation between the two. I then, just to please Joph, limited it to just Eurozone nations (presumably those most like the US in socio-economic terms), and showed that there still was no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates among that set of nations.


This is not a subjective thing. It's not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates among those sets of nations. Period. Can you guys acknowledge that this is a fact? Can you also acknowledge that any gun control argument based on the assumption that there is a correlation between those two is therefore invalid? Anyone?

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 6:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Mar 08 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Great point, gbaji. You've really opened my eyes.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#114 Mar 08 2013 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
But, if other people are going to argue for what they think we should do, it's pretty selective to only single me out for responding with my opinion while giving everyone else a pass.

I'm not going to debate with people who's opinion I understand, that's pointless. If I understand them I'll either a) say something that's likely to change their minds or (and if 'a' fails) b) leave them alone. I'm not going to change anyone's long held political beliefs with a couple of paragraphs on a forum. Understanding other people's beliefs though, well that just makes it a whole lot easier to live together in good 'ol 'merica here. Heaven forbid we have more of that around these parts. I've argued at length with several others here before, so this is hardly unique behavior on my part.

gbaji wrote:
You want to observe people's behavior, motivation, and methodologies when posting, perhaps try turning that keen observation on yourself. It might shed some light.

That can happen after an in-depth conversation, yes. Something along the lines of "Oh, so that's the reason why so-and-so thinks that. Is that a good reason for me to think that?" You'll have to pardon me for not posting my internal dialog. Smiley: wink

gbaji wrote:

I'm posting with "crazy vigor"? What does that mean? Every one of my posts is a response to a post someone else made. And aren't you being somewhat subjective?

Aren't we all?

To answer your question though, I believe it was the part about how that average person with a gun is the last line of defense for democracy.

gbaji wrote:
Would make for a boring forum too!

Boring forums are bad. Bring on the dramas! Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#115 Mar 08 2013 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
I provided data for all European nations comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rate
Ahh, I see you're confused. When people talk about data and facts, they mean all of it not just the ones you pick that you think make your argument sound better. I mean you're still trumpeting about how great Concealed Carry is when all the data disagrees with you. But that's besides the point; What'cha packing? A Beretta? Glock? Don't tell me Jetfire. Or maybe something by Remington? I got an ACR over Christmas and it suuuuuuuuuucks.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Mar 08 2013 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I provided data for all European nations comparing gun ownership rates to homicide rate
Ahh, I see you're confused. When people talk about data and facts, they mean all of it not just the ones you pick that you think make your argument sound better.


This is a joke, right? A glance at the colored maps on the two wiki pages shows that there's not only no direct correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates, but that globally, there appears to a reverse correlation, if any at all (ie: less gun ownership correlates to higher homicide rates). Joph insisted that it was unfair to include "all the facts" because not all the nations were like the US. He insisted that we constrain the list to just nations that were more like the US in terms of economic/social/political development. I did that by looking just at European nations. And the numbers *still* disproved his position. I then restricted the list even more to just the Eurozone and it *still* disproved his position.


What the **** more is required here? There's no way to show the kind of correlation Joph is claiming *without* massively and obviously cherry picking the data. But yet, some people will still insist that we should restrict gun ownership on the grounds that the US has "two many guns" and that's why we have a higher homicide rate than other developed nations. At some point, even the most stubborn of gun control advocates should begin to realize that this argument just does not have merit.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Mar 08 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
This is a joke, right?
Nope. So why aren't you answering the real question? Are you afraid? Are you afraid of guns? Is that why you're so persistent about your claims that CC is the greatest thing ever? So if you are in a situation a real man can save you while you cry in a corner?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Mar 08 2013 at 9:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
This is a joke, right?
Nope. So why aren't you answering the real question? Are you afraid? Are you afraid of guns? Is that why you're so persistent about your claims that CC is the greatest thing ever? So if you are in a situation a real man can save you while you cry in a corner?


Crowd Control is very useful in group settings when your puller brings a few too many back to camp. And meds are useful when you get off them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Mar 08 2013 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
And meds are useful when you get off them.
You'd think you'd be a little more respectful to a person who you've spent the last two or so weeks treating like a super hero when he asks a simple question. You know, people with that fabled concealed carry permit. But I guess that's not exactly surprising to anyone. You talk about how great something is, but are afraid of it when confronted. There's no shame in that, when I was in Boot Camp we had to share a range with some future Fobbits, and wouldn't you believe it but one of them cried after firing their rifle just once? I'm not particularly sure if Frodo made it or not, since you know, fobbit, but it does happen. There's no shame in your abject horror at the pew pews. I mean, yes it does make you less of a man, but that's what the rest of us are here for, right? To protect the weak. To protect you.

Or you can prove me wrong. I'd imagine at this point you'd be more interested at doing that. Or are you embarrassed that you got a Berapi? You can PM me if that's the case.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 Mar 08 2013 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
My position isn't based on my own personal status, and my personal status has no bearing on the validity of anything I write.
If I understand you correctly your race, age, ***, political affiliation, education, religion (or lack thereof), job, life experience and geographical location do not, in any way at all, influence any part of your belief system?

Are you a god machine or something?


EDIT: Typing while holding separate conversation = yeah...not what I meant to type.Smiley: bah

Edited, Mar 8th 2013 9:10pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#121 Mar 08 2013 at 11:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,564 posts
If I understand you correctly your race, age, ***, political affiliation, education, religion (or lack thereof), job, life experience and geographical location do not, in any way at all, influence any part of your belief system?

Exactly. Also, keep in mind that Gbaji reads no GOP talking points. All of his positions are organically arrived at via a complicated process of subjecting himself to long periods of isolation in sensory deprivation chambers. When he emerges from these Plato's caves (or in this case, the conceptual equivalent of Plato's cave he came to understand on his own without ever reading Plato while looking at a large waffle) he has argued all positions to their logical conclusions and for his efforts has won a hard fought deep understanding of the issues that none of us can truly grasp. The fact that his positions are identical, frequently with verbatim wording and catch phrases, to RNC mailers, Washington Times editorials, and Rush Limbaugh transcripts is simply an odd coincidence. His concise, lucid communications of these ideas would be a boon to us all if only, oh if only, we would read and consider them carefully instead of jumping to incorrect conclusions due to our weaknesses and gullibility, not to mention our willingness to blindly believe the indoctrination we've suffered at the hands of MSNBC, CNN or, worst of all, elite universities.

Fight on brave little soldier. If you don't wage the good war of knowledge, who will?
____________________________
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.

#122 Mar 09 2013 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was too buy playing Elf Panties: Online last night to notice Gbaji flipping out here but here it is: Homicides vs. Gun Ownership rates in OECD Nations (same criteria as in the previous chart)

Screenshot

As previously mentioned, the US is far above the average. About twice the average in fact (more than 2x if you took out Mexico). Most nations remain within a fairly narrow band. There's some that stick out but I don't think "Well, we're as good as Estonia!" is a great argument to make for reducing violence. I was happy to learn that Open Office could create a scatter plot graph but I couldn't get it to label the nations so I had to do that by hand (which is why only the "outer" nations are labels since the interior would be a big mess anyway).

Because no other nation has a guns per capita approaching ours, it's hard to say whether the guns are or are not making the difference based off this chart alone. The only nation that breaks the 50 barrier in gun ownership was Yemen (not OECD thus not shown) and they have about the same homicide rate we do. Gbaji's claim that there's no proof of a connection here is somewhat spurious; there's a very definite band of homicides up to 30 guns per 100 residents, after that you lose data points more than anything else. The argument doesn't need to be X guns = Y deaths but rather that you reach a point of saturation where additional weapons begin contributing more and more to violence. Gbajis' claim that the graph disproves any connection is patently false. The United State's homicide rate of double(+) the average combined with the data on guns/gun deaths rate continues to suggest that gun ownership plays a significant factor in homicide rates. Not the only factor but a noteworthy one and one worth discussing when discussing gun control.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 1:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Mar 09 2013 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,069 posts
That graph would be much more legible if Mexico was removed.

We don't include warzone deaths in any other country.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#124 Mar 09 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Last thread when I excluded Mexico, Gbaji had a shit fit about it. So it's in there for the sake of including all OECD nations.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#125 Mar 09 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Because no other nation has a guns per capita approaching ours, it's hard to say whether the guns are or are not making the difference based off this chart alone. The only nation that breaks the 50 barrier in gun ownership was Yemen (not OECD thus not shown) and they have about the same homicide rate we do. Gbaji's claim that there's no proof of a connection here is somewhat spurious; there's a very definite band of homicides up to 30 guns per 100 residents, after that you lose data points more than anything else. The argument doesn't need to be X guns = Y deaths but rather that you reach a point of saturation where additional weapons begin contributing more and more to violence. Gbajis' claim that the graph disproves any connection is patently false. The United State's homicide rate of double(+) the average combined with the data on guns/gun deaths rate continues to suggest that gun ownership plays a significant factor in homicide rates. Not the only factor but a noteworthy one and one worth discussing when discussing gun control.

Edited, Mar 9th 2013 1:20pm by Jophiel
But there's less killings per gun owned so clearly, gun ownership and murder have nothing to do with each other!
____________________________
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.
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Bijou, feelz, Samira, Technogeek, Anonymous Guests (39)