I thought you should know.

A moderated forum for more thoughtful discussion.

Moderators: pd Rydia, LadyDragonClawsEDW

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:01 am

DRAMA!

In our very own forum!

I feel special. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

User avatar
PriamNevhausten
Holy Order of the Crimson Ballpoint
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2002 4:10 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby PriamNevhausten » Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:36 am

I would feel bad about helping this drama along, but an awesome postrank came out of it. Thus, I feel the balance is kept. <p><span style="font-size:xx-small;">"It's in the air, in the headlines in the newspapers, in the blurry images on television. It is a secret you have yet to grasp, although the first syllable has been spoken in a dream you cannot quite recall." --Unknown Armies</span></p>

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:00 am

It's good to see that others are harrassed for postrank changes!

And hey, what's a forum if it doesn't have a little drama? Not like any of our posters have drama-free backgrounds. :0 <p>
<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>Edited by: pd Rydia&nbsp; Image at: 7/15/05 6:02

Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:04 am

Makes me feel like I'm on the SA Forums, only no one had to shell out the $10 for the title change. :D

Also, I have a question for you, and I'd like some solid statistics. How many gun-related crimes are done by people with _legally registered_ firearms? Seriously, you asked for figures, I think it's only fair for you to provide some.

And don't forget to cite some sources. _Primary_ sources, peer-reviewed if possible. None of this Wikipedia stuff. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=idran1701>Idran1701</A] at: 7/15/05 6:06

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:23 am

Nobody ever gave me the figures I asked for, and it sure seems like common sense ought to do my job for me here, but why not! I'll see what I can find. This'll probably take a little while.




Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:32 am

Haven't found what you asked for yet, but here are some excerpts from an interesting article in the October 17, 2003, Friday edition of The Recorder!

"Brian J. Siebel is a senior attorney for the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, D.C. The Legal Action Project represents plaintiffs in gun litigation, including the cases described here. Its Web site is http://www.gunlawsuits.org. week, alleged sniper John Muhammed went on trial in Virginia. Have you ever wondered how he and his purported partner, Lee Boyd Malvo, got the assault rifle that was the instrument of their attacks? Or have you thought more generally about how felons and gang members can so easily get handguns, especially in places like Washington, D.C., where the possession of handguns has been illegal since 1976? Well, the answer is they acquire them - using straw buyers or other methods to get around the Brady Law - from gun dealers who engage in risky business practices.

The gun industry's "dirty little secret" is that it knows who these "bad apple" dealers are. It could stop selling them guns or force them to reform, but is unwilling to do so. The reason? Profits. Crime gun sales are a large percentage of the industry's market. According to expert testimony in a recent federal lawsuit brought by the NAACP against gun manufacturers and distributors, at least 15 percent of the handguns produced or imported for sale in the United States in 1995 were used in a crime by 2000. Crime guns are the industry's third-largest handgun market segment, behind only guns for personal protection and target shooting.

...

In Johnson v. Bull's Eye Shooters Supply, several victims of the D.C.-area snipers have brought suit in a Washington state court against the companies that supplied the Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle used in the "one shot, one kill" attacks. Bull's Eye Shooters Supply in Tacoma, Wash., is the store where Muhammed and Malvo acquired the $1,000 rifle. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced the murder weapon back to the store, Bull's Eye had no record of having sold the gun to anyone. Malvo has told authorities that he - a juvenile ineligible to buy guns - was able to walk out of the store with the three-foot-long assault rifle. According to ATF audits, this was only one of 238 guns in the past three years that were "missing" from Bull's Eye's inventory, with no record of sale and no legally required reports that they were missing or stolen. Inexcusably lax security? Or off-the-books sales to convicted felons and dangerous juveniles? Either way, this kind of reckless behavior directly supplies the criminal market with illegal guns. Despite this evidence, Bushmaster Firearms - the company that sold Bull's Eye the sniper's rifle - called the store "a good customer" after learning of its transgressions. The judge has ruled twice that the suit against both companies should proceed to trial, and a preliminary appeal of these rulings has been rejected.

Lemongello v. Will Jewelry and Loan, in West Virginia state court, concerns a dealer in South Charleston, W.Va., and the manufacturer who supplied it without caring whether its sales practices were reckless. In July 2000, the dealer sold a dozen guns at one time to an obvious gun trafficker, but did not call the ATF about his suspicions until after the soon-to-be-crime-guns were out the door and the profits were securely in his pocket. Sure enough, within a few months, one of those guns was used by a multiple felon to shoot two law enforcement officers in New Jersey. The judge in West Virginia has concluded that both the dealer and the manufacturer could be held accountable for their alleged negligence.

...


Several former gun industry insiders have also come forward to expose what the industry knows. Bob Ricker, a former industry trade association executive and former lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, has testified about meetings throughout the 1990s where industry leaders, with their attorneys present, discussed the problem of reckless gun dealers. They deliberately chose to do nothing about it. The industry decided that taking any action would be an admission that it was possible to stem the supply of new guns to criminals, and, therefore, would increase the risk of being held accountable.

Those within the industry who wanted to take a more responsible approach were quickly ostracized, Ricker added. Even more punishing pressure was brought to bear on Smith & Wesson after it agreed with the Clinton administration in March 2000 to implement widespread reform, including requiring everyone in its distribution network to sign a code of conduct designed to prevent gun trafficking. Furor over the agreement within the gun industry "family" turned Smith & Wesson into a pariah and forced it to drop its code of conduct. The result is that reckless sales practices continue."


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:46 am

More fun with facts! In this case I am quoting a website, (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html) which is in tern citing books. If you think the website is lying, you are welcome to go find the books they cite in detail and make sure. I've heard these figures a number of times before, so I feel pretty good about them.

"But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48)."

Later...

"In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths, approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings."

Another interesting fact!

"The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993 (see figure 4). This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older. A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the "natural" causes of death combined."

And, here's where a big part of my argument lies!

"Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. The increasing number of gun owners has elevated the danger of guns being acquired illegally through robberies and burglaries. In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries."

Now, I can't say for sure that all 600,000 of those guns were used in crimes...but something tells me a hell of a lot of them were.

And this goes back to my old point: Without a legalized gun industry worth billions pumping guns into our country as rapidly as possible, there would be less gun violence. I call this the "duh" argument.

Also: "Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one."

Woo!

This number is awesome: "A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995)."

I'm beginning to doubt I'll find the requested statistic -- it is something that would be ridiculously difficult to find out. You don't always catch a criminal, and even when you do, you often don't get his gun, and even then, there's a good chance you don't immediately report to some organization out there doing a study whether it was legally registered or not. I do think, however, that the ridiculoud number of legally owned guns stolen (more than half a million!) does a very good job of demonstrating my point in that regard.

I'll look a while longer! Asking a journalism major to do research is like giving a cat an easily frightened mouse to play with.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:54 am

I should also note that after the Brady law, a regulation requiring a 5 day "cooling off" period between when you decide you want a gun and your actually getting a gun, which also allows for more thorough background checks -- not that these are consistently made, or based on tough enough rules -- gun violence declined immediately and significantly.

Logical conclusion: Gun violence was being committed with legally owned firearms, and still is, but now to a lesser extent due to regulation!


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:10 am

Hmm. Intriguing. Honestly didn't expect the difference was so pronounced. How does the US compare to other countries that have similar firearm possession rights, out of curiosity? <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:19 am

From the Brady Center (think, Brady law, think also: very reputable).

"For terrorists around the world, the United States is the Great Gun Bazaar. The Chicago Tribune reported recently that, found among the mounds of rubble at a train-ing facility in Kabul for a radical Pakistan-based Islamic terrorist organization, was a manual entitled “How Can I Train Myself for Jihad” containing an entire section on “Firearms Training.” Tellingly, the manual singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms and stipulates that al-Qaeda members living in the United States “obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.” Further, the manual sets forth guidelines for how would-be terrorists should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms."

Good thing guns are protecting us from the terrorists, or that would cause some conern on my part.


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:23 am

...OK. Who was talking about terrorists, though? >_>

Also, just to be completely fair, the website you cited's sources does seem to be at least 7 years out of date, if not more. The most recent reference is from 1998, with most from before 1995. So, it's feasible, though not very, that things have changed since then.

<p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=idran1701>Idran1701</A] at: 7/15/05 11:34

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:28 am

Now that I don't think I can find out in the time I have before I need to go to work this morning. I will, however, note a little more interesting information.

If Priam or whoever actually feels like continuing to argue the case and they want some support, they can easily google the subject and find some reports saying that gun bans have done nothing to curb gun violence. The problem being that these articles are generally based on pretty ridiculous ideas. I read a couple where some small area, surrounded by places that had not banned guns, did so, and then the violence was shockingly about the same in the following months. I know, it is incredible!

The problem being that one state or even ten states banning guns would have absolutely no effect on what I'm arguing is the problem to begin with, especially not within the first five or so years of its enactment. If you can just cross the state line and get a gun, obviously there is not really much of a deterrent for criminals -- even those willing to jump through the hoops of legally registering one. In cases where real gun control laws have been enacted nationally, it's a very different story. The UK saw a marked reduction in violence. Japan is pretty much the same. Also: Canada.

But, lest we forget, I again remind you that I am not necessarily in favor of the total banning of all guns. Rather, I would like people to acknowledge that guns are essentially for killing. Anything else you find to do with it is lovely, but totally beside the point.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:31 am

Quote:
Explosions. Threats. Fear!


That's who was talking about terror.

Also, it's true, this information isn't all as recent as I'd like. That's a valid point. But I agree that the chances that things have changed significantly are pretty low.


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:35 am

Moving this out of an edit since I didn't realize you had posted.




Checking further, I see that an NCVS survey from 2000 found that only 8% of all cases of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault involved a firearm, though 66% of murders did. (www.policyalmanac.org/cri...rime.shtml ) Also, a study by the Department of Justice showed that in 1997, 40% of firearms used in crime were from an illegal source, with another 40% from a friend or family member. (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf )

Edit: Wait, that DoJ report seems to conflict with the 8% figure. It gives much higher percentages per crime except for sexual assault, which it reports at 3%. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: Idran1701 at: 7/15/05 11:37

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:38 am

Good job, I'm jealous. How did you approach the search? I was using google with a variety of search terms and LEXIS-NEXIS (an ultra-awesome newspaper research tool my school is paying for until I graduate, at which point I guess I have to find a way to afford access or work for someone who has it).


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:39 am

...I typed in "federal crime statistics firearms" (without the quotes) into Google, and followed the links the page I found cited. That's it. *shrug*

Also, the difference seems to be that the first page is refering to the _use_ of firearms during a crime, and the DoJ survey is referring to _possession_ of firearms at all. <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=idran1701>Idran1701</A] at: 7/15/05 11:40

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:40 am

Search terms make all the difference. I probably tried to be too specific.

At any rate, I'm off to work! You guys have fun!


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:44 am

Eh, I've been doing this for a while on this board. I'll check further, though, for more info.

Also, just for background, I don't own any guns myself nor have I ever used them nor am I planning to in the future. Not based in personal bias in the sense that I want to keep my pistol, I just prefer not to remove rights once they've been granted.

Edit: One thing that's been mostly ignored are efforts to increase the safety of firearms. From mere safety training to gun locks, to this new concept of designing a gun that can only be fired by a specific person. The latter especially would serve as an efficient counter to a number of the situations you mentioned.

Also, hard figures for the UK. (Crime figures in the UK since '98 are counted by financial year, not calendar year, thus the date span.)

Number of Firearm incidents in England and Wales 1999-00: 16946 (www.statistics.gov.uk/STA...?vlnk=7347 )
Number of total crimes commited same interval: 5261437 (Number of incidents of crime per 1000 people: 101.1 [www.statistics.gov.uk/STA...?vlnk=3552 ], Population of England and Wales according to 2001 census: 52041916 [www.statistics.gov.uk/cen...ase_uk.asp ])

Theoretical number of violent crimes same interval: 1157516 (Violent crimes composed 22% of all crimes in 2003; assuming this figure is relatively true overall [www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds...lr1804.pdf ])

Percentage: 0.3% for total crimes, 1.5% for theoretical number of violent crimes

This result is almost definitely skewed, but I was unable to find definitive rates of violent crimes alone for any interval that overlapped for the firearm incident survey. Thus, the fudged value

Edit2: Results for Canada.

Number of robbery attempts involving a firearm, 2001: 3833 (www.research.ryerson.ca/S..._JY04.html )
Number of robbery attempts, 2001: 26406 or 27414 (88 reported incidents per 100,000 population [www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm ], 2001 population 30,007,094 [www12.statcan.ca/english/...ble-PR.cfm ])

The first given latter value conflicts with the value given in the first cited page, but the math doesn't work out for the 27414 figure, and in this case the rate was definitely taken from the statistics and not the number of incidents, which I can't confirm for the former or I would similarly give a calculated value based on the listed rate for it.

Percentage: 14.5% for 26406, 14.0% for 27414

(Same cites.)
Number of homicide attempts involving a firearm: 171
Number of homicide attempts: 540 or 554 (1.8 per 100,000 population)

Percentage: 31.7% for 540, 30.9% for 554

Kay, I did those two because they were specifically mentioned. Now, can someone name a country with gun control rights equal to the US that I can check?

Also, just remember Magnus: Someone that's right of a liberal might be a centrist, not a conservative. :D

Edit3: Just realized something that might be influencing points of view all around. Where are you from, Magnus? Like, what general area? Because I'm from Eastern Oregon, where though you might not meet a bear, you could very easily meet a cougar. And honestly, you _couldn't_ take one of those down with anything you mentioned before getting...well, wounded enough to require a serious hospital visit at least. Dead easily. And this is just by being there, not even threatening them or anything. Cougars are nasty. And honestly, a lot of people in this area to regularly hunt for meat. FD's from Alaska, where I can imagine the same is easily true for the meat hunting, and I can believe he'd very easily come across a bear. And Shini and Bes are both from...Eastern(?) Virginia, which though I don't know the wildlife, given what little I know of the ecology there I can imagine hunting is a fairly popular pasttime there as well.

Also, though anecdotal evidence completely sucks for anything in a debate, I will say that I only know of two homicides in the last 7 years in this entire county. One was with a hatchet, and one was someone getting bashed with a blunt object and having a fire set in their apartment. So that's also somewhat of an influence on my opinion.




Why doesn't anyone ever call for the banning of hatchets?! >: <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: Idran1701 at: 7/15/05 12:46

FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Fri Jul 15, 2005 4:33 pm

Idran has the right of it! I don't have any statistics on me, but what I do have is the fact that my brother and his wife ran into a rather aggresive bear when hiking one day, and would likely both be dead had he not had a rather large handgun on him. Thus, when I go hiking, I tend to carry a my own! Sure, I could do the same thing with a hunting rifle, but I would prefer to *not* carry something so bulky and unwieldy around with me when I'm just trying to get to the good climbing spots without becoming a snack.

When I'm not hiking, hunting, or at the range, all of my guns are locked up, in a gun safe. With trigger locks. Well away from the ammunition, which is *also* in a safe. It's not the guns' fault that people are fucktards.


And a little bit of history, which I don't have a link to back up, but should be easy enough to find out, or disprove if I happen to be wrong:

Early on in the 20th century, we had a thing called "prohibition". You know, that thing where we banned all alcohol? That didn't work so well. People got their booze whether the government wanted it or not.

That side, you're probably saying, "Booze =/= EVIL WEAPON OF DEATH BLAAAAAAAARG". Yes, I know, that's not a very good comparison. However, before that, we also didn't have a whole lot of, y'know, organized crime. But then suddenly, a lot of people were like, "DUDE! We can organize and make keeping booze away from the coppers a whole lot easier!"

And thus the mafia was born, and they started shooting people they didn't like, sometimes with automatic weapons! That weren't necessarily legitimately acquired! Ohnoes.

The point is that the fact that you can buy guns doesn't make people shoot other people, it's a mentality that's existed for a while that's at fault. It's the mentality that has to change, not the fact that guns are for sale. Education? Sure. You could also make guns hard to get if you want. If I needed a new gun, I'd be perfectly fine waiting two months for a background check and paying twice what they cost now, if that would make you feel better.

Or something. Propose a solution to this percieved problem that doesn't completely ruin my ability to own them.


ALSO: Hooray for Priam and Shiney! That was exactly what I needed to brighten my day. :D <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Quote:
Yes, I know, that's not a very good comparison.


You're right, it's really not. In fact it's pretty much completely tangential. The idea of comparing guns and alcohol is absolutely ridiculous. Making moonshine is something so simple, hillbillies in Mayberry could figure it out. Manufacturing and supplying ammo to a sophisticated firearm = Considerably more difficult! Like, by a factor of a million!

Certainly it's true that if you take away something a lot of people like, many will illegally obtain it anyway. This is not an argument that works in most cases! There are a lot of things most of us do that are still illegal with good reason. Intellectual property, for instance, is protected legally because if it wasn't the arts would collapse on themselves. Guns ought to be at least a bit more illegal than they are, because in this situation where they aren't, as I posted above, they do very little good and absurd amounts of harm.

Also, a minor point: Prohibition did not lead to the invention of organized crime. It simply sped the inevitable construction of an organized crime infrastructure mirrroring those already found outside the US. If you're going to cynically assume the world will always be full of people who like to shoot each other, you could at least be consistent and realize two or three people will always be working together on breaking a law of some sort.

Quote:
Or something. Propose a solution to this percieved problem that doesn't completely ruin my ability to own them.


Um. No. That's your position. I don't really see why I should argue for it.

The fundamental problem with the bear argument is that if we were allowed to carry every safeguard for every situation we might potentially come accross, no matter how ridiculously unlikely, we wouldn't just need a handgun. We'd need tactical weapons and armored vehicles.

As for where I'm from, it's Indiana. I'm in the biggest city we've got at the moment, but I've spent a lot of time in the rural areas -- the ones with woods! -- and never been eaten by a bear.

If the worst thing that happens as a result of not having guns is people not walking in woods where they know bears and cougars are, I guess I'll just have to live with that on my conscience.

But, once again, people are forgetting that I'm not really quite arguing for a gun ban -- I'm just leaning in that direction at the moment based on the facts I've observed and the common sense I've got in my head. Somebody wants to convince me with something a little more rousing than the great bear menace, I'm all for it.

My argument is that guns are for killing!

And I don't think this argument is very productive at the moment, considering about as many posts have been spent literally calling me dumb as actually engaging with me in a debate, so you'll have to excuse me if my enthusiasm for this whole discussion has dimmed. I respect Idran's focus on factual research, but I find the way my ideas were greeted by the rest of you troubling. Why hasn't anyone actually addressed the numbers I posted? Is it just too hard, or are you suffering from cognitave dissonance?

But hey, I'm new, why should civility extend all the way to me.


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:48 pm

I move to dub Magnus "Gamestar the Third".


FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:51 pm

Quick counterpoint since I don't have a lot of time at the moment:

You've never been attacked by a bear? Shucks! I've walked down the streets of Vegas, LA, and NYC, and have never been shot! Holy crap! The threat of bears, quite frankly, looms over me considerably more than the threat of rambo muggers shooting me from every direction.

EDIT: Also, I admit that you're an *expert* at attacking straw men. Bravo. <p>
<hr width="50%"><center><span style="font-family:comic sans ms; font-size:x-large;">AVAST!</span></center></p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flamingdeth>FlamingDeth</A] at: 7/15/05 21:55

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:09 pm

What's my straw man?

I hope you don't mean yourself. Self-deprecation is so unappealing.


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:10 pm

This must be said again:

You're dumb. Stop talking.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:16 pm

Nuh uuuh, you're dumb, you big poopy head!


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:17 pm

No no, seriously. You're a moron. Why are you stinking up our internet? Couldn't you just go die somewhere? Please?


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:19 pm

Come on, man, seriously, what the hell'd I do to piss you off so bad? Disagree with your friends? Articulate!


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:28 pm

Your entire way of arguing speaks of a man who has no respect whatever for those who disagree with him, and believes his own opinion to be in all ways infalliable. Furthermore, none of the point you make have any form of backing beyond your own oppionated yammering. You did link websites! However, that doesn't begin to make up for the fact that your idea of a debate is to insult the other guy's idea until he goes away, and then celebrate your own e-penis. You have repeatedly spit in the face of extreme civility, and revealed your true nature.

You are a lamer. And it's the funniest thing, we don't care for lamers here. We have these weird things called standards, and short of a major attitude adjustment on your part, you're not going to conform to those standards. I congratulate you on the ability to post to a forum and use proper english at all, since we rarely see that, but good english skills does not a smart person make.

SO:

Please grow up, or go away.


Idran1701
None some call is air am
 
Posts: 42197
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 9:37 am

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Idran1701 » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:30 pm

I think they're talking about you attacking a straw man because you keep focusing on the bear thing even though others (like me, with those Canadian statistics up above, or the notes about efforts to increase gun safety rather than a ban) have presented other comments that you seem to be ignoring.

Also, my point by asking about the area you live in _wasn't_ that you'd be attacked by bears or we'd be attacked by bears or anything stupid like that. I was seeing if the hunting culture is much stronger here than where you're from, and if you live in a large city, I'd guess that's true, though I can't say for sure.

Also, just to be balanced in this: ad hominem attacks are an equal logical fallacy to straw man arguments. >_> <p>

"Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=idran1701>Idran1701</A] at: 7/15/05 22:33

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:39 pm

Image

Hi, I'm Pervy. <p>---------------------------

ReakoSomner: regardless, I was poor, and in need of diamonds</p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:41 pm

I don't see how the numbers I provided didn't constitute backing. Furthermore, if you don't like my tone, I'm vaguely sorry you feel that way. Of course, it sounds pretty weak from someone who was attacking me directly from the very beginning without even hearing me out. You may feel that I have IMPLIED people who disagreed with me were stupid, but you outright said the person who disagreed with you was stupid. You'll also note that while I have attacked opinions, you have attacked people. I'm more than happy to hear why you think my beliefs are lame. What I'm not especially enthusiastic about is your belief that I as a person am insufficient.

Idran: I didn't respond to the Canadian numbers because I felt they stood on their own. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do, debunk them? Once again, as I said above, I respect your going out there and getting numbers. I'd read good things about Canada and guns, and it may be that they were exaggerated. I'll happily acknowledge this. I thought I had.

Also, I'd really, really like to get past the bears, because I don't think it's much of an argument. The number of bear attacks in a year is nothing in comparison to the gun violence committed with legally owned firearms every year. But people keep talking about the bears! I guess I'll let that topic go -- if you feel bears break my argument, I guess at this point, there's no changing your mind.

As for questions of hunting culture, I would note that I am totally cool with hunting. I've actually done a little and it was cool. I think shooting animals is pretty cool. This whole time I've been arguing for handguns as the problem and hunting rifles as more or less tangential -- because they're not too great in a human-on-human confrontation, because they're more or less impossible to conceal, and because they were explicitly designed for hunting. You want to take a hunting rifle out and shoot bears, go for it.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=magnusdesilentio@rpgww60462>Magnus] at: 7/15/05 22:42

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:45 pm

I should note I've never attacked your argument, jsut your intelligence and your method of debate. There's a difference. You can disagree with us all you like, so long as you're not a royal ass about doing it. Which you are.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:49 pm

Well, I guess I think you're a royal ass for what you've done and said, too. And I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:52 pm

Oh I give up.


User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:24 am

Okay, I'm sorry. I was going to stay out of this, but...

"Um. No. That's your position. I don't really see why I should argue for it."

Magnus, you're the one who earlier went on very, very early in this about how you could "hook [others] up with some pretty hot shit [research to back your opinions]." Then what did you do? The equivalent of "justgoogleit,stupid!" with "Actually, you can figure it out for yourself, or alternately you can tell me when in the hell you are going to run into a bear."

Yeah. You are being an ass. And a hypocrite. And a really damn lousy debater. There's a reason why everyone is against you!!1eleventy-one

You know, Choark is one of our favored posters who undoubtedly has similar viewpoints to your own. The obvious solution, therefore, is to dye your hair blue. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

User avatar
Shinigori V2
Wishing she brought a backup turtle.
 
Posts: 7996
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2002 6:13 pm

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Shinigori V2 » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:38 am

Quote:
Hi, I'm Pervy.


Hi, Pervy. :( <p>
<div style="text-align:center">What's wrong with this ring?!</div></p>

Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:04 pm

As I said before, the reason I wheeled back like that was that I didn't want to get into this fucking fight, because I knew exactly what would happen the second I had the nerve to say what I thought on the subject.

And it's this. I get gangfucked. Not because I'm a shitty debater -- I'm one of two people in this thread who backed up anything he said with an actual series of facts -- but because I'm new and you don't like your new folk getting uppity and thinking they're allowed to actually say anything without kissing your asses first.

Brian spoke highly of you guys, but I am severely unimpressed. As much fun as it must be to live in a world where everybody has to go through a little ritual of opinion-free cocksucking before they can speak up, I have to think it's probably limiting your life experiences.

I will point out, again, that the second I had the nerve to open my mouth, I was being called an idiot. I didn't get a chance. I was just an idiot from the start. And if, in that rather hostile environment, I didn't make fucking love to your opinions, I'm sorry.


Magnus de Silentio
 

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Magnus de Silentio » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:07 pm

INCIDENTALLY, the straw man fallacy is setting up an absurd abstraction of your opponent's argument, then tearing it apart effortlessly. This is not something that has been done in this thread, and Deth ought to be embarrassed that others accused me of doing it to him! Responding to the stupidities in someone else's actual argument is hardly the straw man fallacy -- but I find it pretty amusing that people felt it was!

And I'm spent.


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby Besyanteo » Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:28 pm

Oh please, get a live journal you whiny bitch. If the entire community's against you, and you still can't see that just possibly the problem might be your own, then you've got serious issues.

The fact is, the majority of the people here aren't talking about guns anymore. Alot of us never were. We have no problem with you having a different opinion. Our problem is, as we've explained several times, that you're an ASSHOLE. If you can't have a simple debate without assuming that anyone not expressing your own opinion is the devil, using sarcasm to such excess that you look like a political cartoon on crack, and generally sayying things that make you look like you have the intelligence of a fucking goldfish, why should we give you anything even resembling respect?

Of course, I suppose this is kind of pointless as well. You will, true to course, ignore every point I've made, try to twist my words in your favor, or fall on the old-standby of using something entirely unrelated to this post from earlier in the thread so you can continue to argue, and tell yourself you're witty and smart.

And to be frank: I don't know about you, but alot of us here, especially Rydia, have been close friends with Brian for a very long time. I'm willing to lay odds that your esentially calling her an attention whore and elitist bitch, along with the rest of us really, isn't going to impress him much.

Also: You weren't deemed stupid until AFTER the back and forth nonsense about bears and guns and terrorists started kicking into high gear. Don't try to blame us for the fact that you started an argument you never had a chance in hell of winning, or refusing to bow down and worship whatever comment you spit out like it was the damned Dahli Llama. This isn't AOL, we have brains, and advise you develope one.

We do not ask anyone to kiss any amount of ass or suck any kind of cock to get in here. You can look around the forum yourself, you won't find it. I'm sorry you never got out of puberty or your Mom's basement, but that's not our damn problem.

Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=besyanteo@rpgww60462>Besyanteo</A]&nbsp; Image at: 7/16/05 13:29

User avatar
pd Rydia
Moderator
 
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Temple of Fiends

Re: I thought you should know.

Unread postby pd Rydia » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:52 pm

Magnus: next time you don't want to get into a fight, I'd suggest saying "[I'm stepping out because] I don't want to get into a fight." Actually say what you want. Don't say the equivalent of "justfuckinggoogleit,stupid," because that's just sounding like you're fleeing the battlefield with one final (pretty lame) jab. Unless, of course, that's what you want, in which case, you'll get called on it. I hate to tell you, but that is shitty debating. You may not be a shitty debater overall--hell, you haven't posted next to anything on the community yet--but you haven't exhibited your best in this thread.

There is indeed some hostility towards newbies on RPGWW--particularly from certain members who would do well to follow their own STFU advice at times. However, there is greater hostility towards people acting stupidly.

-I- don't care if you agree with anyone's opinions. In fact, if you agreed with Shini, Pervy, and Bes, particularly on some things, I'd be pretty disappointed. But if everytime you want to discuss things, you're going to pull out tactics such as the above, and blame people calling you out on it as newbie-hate, then that's just crap.


Bes: I appreciate it, but I'm not personally offended by Magnus. If Magnus wants to call me an attention whore and an elitist bitch, let him do so in those words, himself. And if Brian isn't impressed, let him let it be known to Magnus. Seriously. Keep me and Brian out of your flame.

And Jesus fuck, you may wish to cut out the personal attacks. It's more than a little lame. Attack his argument all you want, but him personally?

I don't know about you, but this is one of Brian's, and Ashley's, friends, and I respect that. Just because someone does something stupid doesn't mean they are stupid. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">dictionary.com | encyclopædia dramatica</div></p>

PreviousNext

Return to Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron

Yalogank