DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 20, 2015, 03:45:46 PM
-
You have folks with anger & desperation as part of their mental core, with the added motivation to hurt others, for whatever reason, be it robbery, rape, hatred, etc.. These are the folks that will use whatever tool they can obtain to hurt whoever it is they want to hurt. Frequently that's a firearm, because, it can be done at a distance. But other items can be used as well. These are the folks who will shoot people in the back of the head, if they could, and would be xo's "bad gun nuts"
However, notice that even good gun nuts are demeaned. They apparently piss & moan.....not sure about what, but according to the professor, that's a good gun nut. Notice how completely different the 2 types of "nuts" are. One that wants to inflict hurt onto others, the other law abiding "moaners"
But, it doesn't stop there....apparently there's the "useless gun nut", who's primary critique, is they're not omnipresent, and able to be in every place, where a bad gun nut is inflicting carnage. Not sure how that makes them useless, since the parameters here is coincidence, which no one has control over. Good & Useless gun nuts don't go looking for the bad ones. That's not and has never been their function. Good & Useless gun nut have no mindset that they can stop all evil acts, or prevent all manners of killing. They are simply an added level of potential protection, that otherwise would not be there
And yet, notice how often gun nuts are used in general, as a negative, with the inferrence that they're all bad in some way. That's why the question was posed to differentiate gun nuts from its general use by the good professor. Since, without it, he continues to use the generic paint brush of "gun nuts", lumping the perfectly responsible legal gun owner with the one that's perfectly willign to shoot someone in the back of the head. Not very rational now, is it
-
The distinction between the Good Gun Nuts and the Bad Gun Nuts is straight from the speech of the Head Honcho of Gun Nuts, Wayne La Pierre, who said, and I quote: "The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". So he is the one that defines why it is good that damned near everyone have a gun. The positive contribution of the NRA types is to stop Bad Persons with Guns.
But since LOTS of bad persons with guns just aren't around to fulfill their useful function, there is obviously a third type of Gun Nut: the Useless Gun Nut.
In Charleston at the time of the last massacre, there were only two kinds of Gun Nut: the one Bad Gun Nut who killed all those people, and millions of Useless Gun Nuts who were absent from the scene.
I use the term "NUT" because these people refuse to recognize the basic truth: the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot, some by Good Gun Nuts defending us from Bad Gun Nuts, some by Bad Gun Nuts shooting victims, Incompetent Gun Nuts who shoot themselves while playing with guns, Accidental Gun Nuts, like children who shoot themselves and others while playing with guns, and Suicidal Gun Nuts, who shoot themselves.
-
...........to recognize the basic truth: the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot,.................
How can this be called a truth? ,it has been disproven by the growth of gun availability coinciding with a decrease in violent crime.
Perhaps the improved access to guns is causing the decrease in crime , perhaps not , this is not easy to prove.
But that doubling of guns available coincides with a steep decrease in the number of violent crimes is proof positive that the more guns there are in the population, the more people will die from getting shot,.
can't be a truth.
-
The distinction between the Good Gun Nuts and the Bad Gun Nuts is straight from the speech of the Head Honcho of Gun Nuts, Wayne La Pierre, who said, and I quote: "The only thing that will stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun". So he is the one that defines why it is good that damned near everyone have a gun. The positive contribution of the NRA types is to stop Bad Persons with Guns.
Like clockwork, you completely contort the context of what LaPierre was saying, mutating it into a hyperbolc notion he wants everyone to be armed. It's right up there with the mutation of Bush's mission accomplished, and Condi's Mushroom cloud references. He's not claiming, or even implying everyone needs to be armed. What he's making painfully clear, is that bad guys will get them, and the most effective defense against someone wanting to do serious damage to you, is with your own. You're trying to drag that out into an extreme position, when he never uttered such a position
But since LOTS of bad persons with guns just aren't around to fulfill their useful function, there is obviously a third type of Gun Nut: the Useless Gun Nut.
Which again, makes no sense. Useless, per your twisted parameters simply means that the situation didn't warrant them having to use their weapon. News flash....THAT'S A GOOD GOAL. WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE OUR LIVES ARE AT GRAVE RISK, AND HAVE TO PULL OUR FIREARM. But if the situation arises, we're at least prepared. That's hardly useless. It's far more common sense
Your frequent attempts to lump them altogether, demonstrates a level of intellectual dishonesty, where you're implying no difference from the responsible law abiding gun owner & the thug ready to shoot someone in the back the head
-
The typical reaction of the Useless Gun Nut.
You fail to realize that the guns you have put into circulation will outlive you and that you have at best limited control over what becomes of them when you have joined the Choir Celestial.
200 million guns in the US are rather like a minefield or some other type of unexploded ordinance. There is no control over what becomes of the guns of the deceased. There should at least be a national gun registry.
The NSA has cameras, drones and all manner of surveillance, but they do nothing to monitor the many proclamations of future mayhem of guys like Roof.
If Al Qaeda ir Isis had killed nine innocent American citizens, you would be screaming for the government to DO SOMETHING.
Naturally, you would BLAME OBAMA. Alas, there is no way you can blame Obama for this one.
But of course, they were of the wrong hue for you to cry anything, and all you want is for the government to do the usual nothing.
JNothing can be done. It is the price we must pay to keep our personal arnenals (sigh!).
-
The typical reaction of the Useless Gun Nut.
You fail to realize that the guns you have put into circulation will outlive you and that you have at best limited control over what becomes of them when you have joined the Choir Celestial.
And you fail to realize how you portray useless gun nuts as never being where they need to be to possibly help prevent loss of life, then decry how there should never allowed to be in any place to help possibly prevent the loss of life in the 1st place. Its YOUR parameters that makes them supposedly useless
200+million guns, and yet, violent crime declines in this country (except of course for those regions with the strictest gun control)
If Al Qaeda ir Isis had killed nine innocent American citizens, you would be screaming for the government to DO SOMETHING.
That "something" would be going after the specific folks that did it, yea. That IS a Constitutional function of the Government, vs trying to redistribute income or force everyone have health insurance.
Naturally, you would BLAME OBAMA. Alas, there is no way you can blame Obama for this one.
And again, with the blame Obama crap? What does Obama have to do with any of this......outside of stolking racial tension animosity. The person to blame is the racist kid that did the killing ::)
But of course, they were of the wrong hue for you to cry anything, and all you want is for the government to do the usual nothing.
JNothing can be done. It is the price we must pay to keep our personal arnenals (sigh!).
What you refer to as "keep our personal arnenals", the rest of us refer to it as the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, of the United States. That's as much a right as your personal 1st amendment arnenal
-
Personal arsenals.
When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to the poor to hunt dinner and the rich to hunt down escaped slaves.
We no longer hunt and eat wild critters, and we have no more runaway slaves.
-
And that was never the function or intention of the Constitution
-
Because you were there, sitting on Thomas Jefferson's right shoulder, of course.
-
No.....its because i can read, and the Constitution is clear in its wording and intentions. Here's a hint.....NO WHERE does it reference slaves or hunting anywhere in the Bill of Rights
-
Personal arsenals.
When the Constitution was written, guns were necessary to the poor to hunt dinner and the rich to hunt down escaped slaves.
We no longer hunt and eat wild critters, and we have no more runaway slaves.
Most pertaining, they were needed for the people to fight the government.
Since when do we no longer hunt ?
-
When was the last time you ate anything you hunted?
NMost Americans do not hunt for food. When this country was founded, over half the people lived in rural areas, and nearly all the meat they ate was from game they hunted: passenger pigeons were so numerous they sometimes landed on trees in such numbers, they broke all the limbs. They were hunted to extinction. There were deer, elk, squirrels, rabbits, turkeys, pheasants and fish galore.
Rifles and shotguns were used to hunt most of these. I doubt they would be all that useful in a mass murder in a church. Walking into a church with a rifle might cause the quarry to flee.
-
Good thing that's not what the Constitution is about, in any way, shape, or form
-
Like you know anything about this.
-
Apparently you, a lingustics professor, are unable read. Who da thunk that. I, on the other hand, can read, and have read the Bill of Rights, and much of the Constitution. NOTHING in there pertains to hunting
-
It does not matter whether there is anything about hunting or slavecatching in the Bill of Rights or not. The reasons for not banning guns from the citizens were known and obvious to all. Nearly everyone in colonial times went hunting or bought game from those who did. The did not mention slavecatching because it was a matter of emotional contention between the slave states and the free states. This got so bad that the House banned all discussion of slavery as part of the rules.
It was bad form to even use the word "slave": the proper words were "servants" and "field hands". Only those in the business of selling slaves used the word "slave".
There is no reason to be subtle about how the gun nuts are a bunch of idiotic jackasses than do not understand that the more guns there are, the more people are going to get shot.
-
It does not matter whether there is anything about hunting or slavecatching in the Bill of Rights or not.
You wish. IT ABSOLUTELY MATTERS. What's not there....DOESN'T EXIST. You can use your imagination to make up anything you want. That doesn't make it so, or even truthful. The Constitution is the law of the land. The reasons for not banning guns, was clear in the language of the Constitution, and specifically, the Bill of Rights. And those words were backed up by the Federalist papers. It wasn't some made up leftist reason about hunting or slaves/servants/field hands. It was the concrete reasons made up by the Founders, which was specific to the limitations the Federal Government could exercise over its citizenry.
So, the idea that the 2nd amendment's primary function was to deal with slaves/servants/field hands & hunting is missing the most intregral component in validating that idea......THE ACTUAL WORDS. The only idiots here are the ones that insist on ignoring both history, and simple-to-read language. Ironic for a language professor, isn't it
-
The Founding Fathers clearly added the Second Amendment so you could take your guns to Church.
-
Not written, so again, that wasn't the reason either. Try again
-
You are not an expert or a judge. You are a drooling ijit. No one needs to seek your silly approval.
-
Nor do I seek anyone's approval. Though obviously when discussing anything Constitution, when compared to you, I'm apparently a Rhodes Scholar. But its nice to know when it's apparent that your quiver is empty. All that you have left is 2nd grade insults. I thank you for the validation
-
No, you are not any sort of expert. You are an obsessed loon.
-
Wash...rinse...repeat (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=18995.msg168129#msg168129). Never said I was an expert. Merely compared to you, apparently I am
-
Apparently, in your own opinion.
The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.
-
Apparently, in this country, the facts refute your opinion, in that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, the more lives saved.
Deal with it
-
I deal with it by once more pointing out that it fucking is not true.
-
Your opinion on that proclamation is debunked by the facts, I'm afraid
-
sirs facts are not actual accurate facts.
-
Of course they're not mine. They belong to the FBI. Your beef is with them apparently
-
My beef is that you make up shit and claim that it is somehow accurate.
The FBI does not get into children shooting themselves and each other. Not all shootings are due to gun crime. Many are due to gun stupidity, gun accidents, gun suicides. hunting mishaps.
-
My beef is that you make up shit and claim that it is somehow accurate.
LOL...said the kettle to the pot
The FBI does not get into children shooting themselves and each other. Not all shootings are due to gun crime. Many are due to gun stupidity, gun accidents, gun suicides. hunting mishaps.
Yea, and those statisitcs are taken into account, and STILL MORE LIVES ARE SAVED, THAN THOSE TAKEN. The numbers are specific to lives lost with the use of a gun. Not stupidity, or being wounded. Simply lives lost vs lives not lost when a firearm was used to defend oneself
-
Simply bullshit.
Events that are not reported are never entered into statistics.
More guns will mean more deaths from guns.
-
Actually....simply true. Deal with it, or just keep sticking your head in the sand. Matters not to me, since I don't really care how ignorant you wish to remain.
(http://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1820435/224791420/stock-vector-see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil-224791420.jpg)
-
Alas, I will never attain your level of ignorance. You will always be at the very Pinnacle of Dumb. The Apex of Stupidity. The Acme of Ignorance.
-
And once again, we witness when the professor's quiver is empty. 8)
-
........
Events that are not reported are never entered into statistics.
.....
There is an oligarchic effort to shape the perception of the public.
White guys get shot by the police and black guys get shot by the police, last two years seems like one report after another of the black guys getting shot, but looking at the totals there are about twice as many white guys getting shot by the police , but not making the news.
They do have us where they want us, we depend for our freedom on an education that we can't get.