Australian comedian on social skills and why gun cntrol wrks

Post Reply New Topic

Narrator: Gun control threads inevitably turn out badly with name calling between posters. For some reason such debates don't centre around any facts or statistics but simply on the size of the gonads (or mouth) of the posters as to who can shout the loudest. Such debates have a tendency to get locked. Some threads are simply best avoided, and gun control has to be at the top of the list.

^All too true.



And this pretty much sums up the reason for the majority of our (and many others') differences on the subject. Your stance that any opinions on firearms different from your own in any way makes someone anti-gun.



^pot and kettle.

whats a adhoc shooting range?

as for anti gun gun owners. people who are like " you can ban all guns except my bolt action and its ok" or " I don't use simautomatic handguns so why does anyone else need them" I really dislike those people. its like " you can do that to blacks, I'm not black"
I don't shoot .50 bmg guns but I still think others should be able to. or the ones who think registration and insurance is a good idea.

owning guns doesn't make you pro gun, just as owning a car doesn't make you pro racing. there are also people who smoke but are anti smoking. low and be hold peolple can be hypocrites. do as I say not as I do. etc

seems to come down to it won't hurt me so who cares if it hurts others. I can afford gun insurance, so if some poor person can't then that's their problem. just like with welfare and all other things. most the anti gun gun owners I've met have been upper middle class, own 1 or two guns. or own a rifle they hunt with once a year.

what bothers me the most about anti gun people is they don't want guns but rather then stick to just not owning them they want everyone else to conform to their ideas and lifestyle. I can not stand those type of people be it about any subject.

What was the point of comparing me to a strict religious group if not to suggest that my opinion is like that of a religious person, based on faith and not facts and thus not worth responding to? This is what Raptor and I mean when we say you're tap dancing, you made a pretty clear implication based on some faulty assumptions, and rather than retract in the face of correction, instead you continue to parse, like a politician quibbling over semantics.



I must have missed all the other people spinning elaborate theories about me based on a one line comment, please point them out.



I'll take it seriously when presented with a serious argument for it, which I so far have not.



Did you miss that I actually responded to that comment with a rebuttal?



So, you came in here for reasons other than debating gun control, made some unfounded assumptions about me, made an unsupported assertion about the merits of gun control without providing a single argument or fact in favor, and are now retreating because you think the whole thing would be pointless? I have to ask, what did you think was going to happen?

Seriously, what answers did you come here seeking?

Your first post was a fact-less personal assertion about rhetoric vs anecdote, followed up by a personal attack on me, a bunch of squabbling during which you try to claim that the attack was not an attack, followed by you deciding that you can't be bothered to argue with us, our minds are so closed, etc, again without anything to actually back that statement up, and then a claim that your time was wasted...

The problem is that you're trying to do that false equivalence media "fairness" thing, giving equal weight to two opposed positions when one of them has facts and knowledge on their side and the other has only emotion and rhetoric, and then expecting one to respect the other. You've also not actually proposed anything or argued in favor of anything, you've just repeatedly accused people of being close minded and such based on one line joke posts, which is kind of ironic when you think about it. You might get more of what you claim to want if you actually tried arguing, rather than trying to disqualify the opinions of others based on some armchair deductions and personal prejudice.

I tried the fact based dispassionate thing for years, didn't work, anti-gunnery is entirely emotionally based, and frankly, I got a bit tired of having all the onus be on me to disprove lie after lie with meticulously researched facts, it's a bit much effort for an internet debate, so I've had to incorporate some strategic mockery into my repertoire, I mean when even my most reasonable critics don't even know the laws of their own states, it's pretty justifiable IMHO. If I can't change someone's mind, at least I can destroy their credibility with others and point out that they don't know what they're talking about, which you have to admit, is the norm when it comes to these arguments.



Really, ahead of genderwar threads in L&D?

Who, me?
This is trying? For anyone with any powers of observation it pretty much looks like you?ve made your mind up in advance.


Read my last again. You weren?t ?looking? for diddly.

You cast the first stone with this, after it was made plain that you came into this thread with a preordained opinion.


Seems you don?t want it to??


Uh huh?..

Florida has fewer gun owners than many states,(I'm guessing stricter gun laws),yet they have more gun deaths than my state,which has more gun owners.Go figure.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viol ... s_by_state

Usually but not always some place at the end of a dirt road in no man?s land distinguishable by all the shot up junk, broken glass, and empty shell casings everywhere.
Not the ideal scenario but sometimes that?s all there is when there are no local shooting ranges that the public can access.
Some are on private land that the landowner sets up but those usually aren?t so cluttered with junk. A fox won?t s**t in his own den.


Anti-gun gun owners are the worse of the anti-gun lot. The more naïve people assume they are the good guys. Even with the disdain I have for all anti-gunners, I actually have more respect for the traditional anti-gunner that refuses to touch a gun because they are at least consistent in their principles, unlike the anti-gun gun owner snake.

ahh. always just called those shooting spots. I only go to those, never had problems. we go to one where it seems the forest department set it up for that. theres 3 piles of gravel one big one up close, one at a medium distance and another at 150 yards or so, depending on where you shoot from. they work great as back stops, and the roads are paved, so its not like they just left exta gravel from road making. its in a big open area in the trees, lots of people go there, we've shot with 2 groups of strangers. turned into quite some fun, talking, letting each other shoot our guns. no one shoots when people walk out . we all finish shooting take our ear protection off and talk/pick up targets then load up ear on make sure no one is in the direction and shoot again.
most seem to just be nice people out to enjoy a similar hobby. now the dirt bike people who shouldn't be there they can be a bit rude.

why are all the stats in 2010 ecept gun ownership which is done in 2007. o.O
also its from a liberal/democrat website. ewww so not probably a trusted data. and no reference to how they got those numbers.

^I don't think you see what I was getting at.One of the states with the fewest amount of owners has one of highest rate of gun violence,proving that the amount of guns in the population isn't the problem,it's the people that have the guns.Most of those crimes were probably committed with an illegal purchase by criminals.
By the way,liberal,democrat and a gun owner.We do exist.

Last edited by Misslizard on 10 Sep 2014, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

We call those people 'Fudds', as in Elmer, the ones who think that if they throw us semi auto rifle and handgun enthusiasts under the bus it will appease the antis enough to ignore their hunting rifles and shotguns. Clearly, they've never visited the VPC site, where their rifles are described as "intermediate caliber sniper rifles" and their Remington 870 duck gun becomes an "assault shotgun"....

They also held spread FUDD, as in Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and Disinformation.

Ah, the type I get lumped in with. It is not that I want to ban guns, it's that I want increasing regulations on a sliding scale based on capability. It would be very complex and difficult to establish such a scale, but worth it IMO. But I do love safety regulations of all sorts, so I admit I am fairly biased that way.

I also get labelled as anti-business for the same reasons: my stance that there should be extremely heavy regulations on businesses that have the capability of doing massive damage to the economy, with significantly less than there are currently for those who would barely be a blip even on the local level.

It's just as you say Misslizard: "Most of those crimes were probably committed with an illegal purchase by criminals."

And when you consider the history of Florida as a retirement community and the reason why Floridians were the first to champion "Right to Carry" and "Stand Your Ground" laws, and whose legally purchased and armed seniors are the most unlikely to start knocking off 7-11s or participate in cocaine wars.......... The criminal factor in Florida has been horrible for 50-60 years, and as in all other states, criminals rely on illegal sources for their weapons; and this is what forced Floridians to defend themselves.

I'm a democrat. I lean left on education, welfare , gay rights and few other things. but most democrat politicians and most democrat sites are anti gun. the party is anti gun. I accept that reality.