Mark Steel on NRA reaction to Boston bomb. Genius

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, of course I'm sure it would be better to debate like you and never really make a point. All you've done is endlessly jabber about unspecified cultural changes and a recent claim of being a civically responsible and morally superior Canadian gun owner to use as an example for us dumb American hooligans to follow.
Your whole goal seems only to perpetuate the debate without ever making a valid point or hearing anyone else s.


You still haven't told us what this cultural change will be. Whatever it is, and I doubt you know either, you make it sound like it's going to be forced down our throats and that gives it a punitive tone which is typical of progressive ideology.

I have never claimed to be morally superior. Indeed, a brief scrutiny of my posts will demonstrate that I believe morality to be inherently personal, and inapplicable to others. I subscribe to the view that no one can ever claim moral superiority to another person in any respect, whatsoever.

I have never claimed to be an example. I think that our countries (plural) have many valuable lessons for each other to draw from (and I will say, again, that works in both directions), but I don't claim to personally embody any of those lessons.

And I have never described Americans as dumb, or as hooligans.

I have no objection to a spirited disagreement between us. But I will not have you lie about me to my face.



Of course I don't know what the cultural change is going to be. Only a moron pretends to know how a culture is going to change over time. Until the change is demonstrably in progress (as it is now on same-sex marriage, for example), we can hope, we can agitate, but we cannot predict.

What I do know is that culture is not static--it is constantly changing, and change responds to those pressures that have the greatest influence over it. In the case of the United States, media, and the progressive shift in influence from formal media to social media will have the strongest impact. Partisan political pressure is diminishing in influence over the last 40 years or so. Academic pressure has been diminishing steadily over a similar period.

As for "getting forced down your throats," I wonder if you misapprehend the nature of cultural change. If you think that racial equality was forced down your throats, then yes. That's how it happens. But if you believe that racial equality (to the extent that it has been achieved) has been the result of incremental changes over time, then why should other cultural changes not take place in the same fashion?

They're my bear arms and I'll be a muslim socialist nazi before I give them up

You and most of your fellow countrymen here seem to relish in badmouthing the United States at every opportunity. Gonna try and tell me otherwise and maybe throw it under the pretense of international interests?


It’s been the only thing you’ve talked about and it’s been more than just this thread.


More smoke.


Yeah, when all else fails throw that race card in there. It’s irrelevant but float it in there on a cloud of smoke anyway to see if it flies.


Then there’s this /\ That clearly baits the response you're complaining about.

Grow up.

Last edited by Raptor on 04 May 2013, 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And like Pavlov's dog, you respond.

This is why you fail every time you attempt to argue--because you are completely predictable. I know exactly how to provoke you, and I can predict every eye-rolling response you make. I know every bit of strategy and argument you've got, and I know exactly how little evidence you have to back it up. You will never engage on a question of substance. You will never bring evidence to back up your claims.

You simply persist in repeating your opinions, and attempting to belittle those who disagree with you. And then you claim that others should, "grow up."

To this aged eyes, this is what winning looks like. I don't have to change your mind. I just have to give you enough rope.

Are you trying to get this thread locked?

As do you with at least equal guilt.


1. You can’t provoke me but you can trigger a response. At most I've only been mildly annoyed over my entire time in PPR and I haven’t even been that annoyed in a few years. Can you say that for yourself?
2. I’m predictable? How un-predictable is “culture change, culture change culture change” over and over? I might be predicable but at least I reiterate the same set of valid points. The cheapest parrot can be taught to repeat “culture change” over and over. Where are the points your trying to make in this?


Go ahead and disagree but at least make a valid point. Bring some credible morsel to a gun control debate that’s worthy of debate.
Accusing me of belittling only tells everyone that you've brought nothing into this that is above belittling. It's called self-belittling but go ahead and hang it on me anyway.

I rest my case.



You’d have to compete before you can win.

Ummm... A gun is a hell of a lot easier than those methods. First two are likely to fail and the third is putting yourself through torture. As long as you put it in the right place a bullet through the brain is nearly instant and painless. Guns also make it a hell of a lot easier to kill other people. Period. Gun control is not a topic I care that much about one way or another, but you need to stop roping yourself up with absolutely ret*d arguments. Your painting the pro-gun crowd as a village full of village idiots.

Rap, Visa, this has clearly devolved into an unseemly personal feud that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand; I suspect those dastardly German pirates to be at the root of it. I'm looking a bit harder in your direction, Rap, as I think you're kind of being the aggressor here, and Visa is actually pretty much with us on the important stuff, just not so much the role of government in the whole boondoggle. If I may borrow from the Gipper for a moment, a person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a valued friend and ally, not a 20% traitor; seems pretty relevant here.
Besides which, I enjoy having a liberal Canadian around who tells the gun controllers that their schemes won't work, it messes with their heads in ways even I can't.

Gun suicides have their failures, too. A gunshot is not absolute even if in the head or chest. One of my 11th grade teachers's daughter attempted to shoot herself in the heart but ended up living although paralyzed from the chest down. Others have pulled away at the time they pulled the trigger and severely wounded themselves. It's not like the absence of a handy firearm is going to cause the person to abort the whole thing, either. No household is without other means of suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods
"Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide continued along an increasing trend, not decreasing until measures specifically aimed to provide support for those intent on suicide were implemented."

And way above all it's the desire and act of suicide that causes the death, not the tool.


It is just me or is there some incivility creeping back in to your posts so soon?

Actually, I’ve been barred from referencing the German pirate line.


If he’s made a point I don’t know what it is and it’s not from a lack of looking for it, either. Visagrunt and I have had these gun debates (or call it whatever) on and off going back about 4 years and I don’t remember it being much different.
If he has an argument to make or at least better define “culture change” then he should spit it out and not just cough on it and tap-dance around.
On the pro-gun side I can at least say that the average pro-gunner has brought credible arguments to the table based at least as much on practical and legal matters as on constitutional grounds.


I’d need to see something to agree with 80 percent of the time first.


If not for the liberals this forum would be deader than it is for we would have no one to disagree with and would resort to infighting.
Personally, I don’t look down on Canada or Canadians as a whole and never have. I've known several and some have been friends.
Nor have I had a hard time in Canada. It’s a bit different but as a foreigner I didn't find anything too objectionable.
I have found that most of the Canadians on this forum like to take at least thinly veiled shots at the US and Americans in general. Whatever, but they shouldn't get all butthurt when I take a shot at them as a whole or individually. Then it comes off as my country is better than yours or we’re better than you.

Eh, I think most of the non-Americans on here do that, not just the Canadians. I tend to see these little cheap shots as an opportunity to annoy bitter Europeans by reminding them of their international impotence, but that's just me. I figure that if we're going to spend billions upon billions of dollars to have the biggest dick in the world, we might as well swing it around on the internet, as God intended.

He's with us on guns not causing violence and gun control not being the answer to violence, which I think are really the important points here; that he's also on the record calling Canada's gun registry a dismal failure is a bonus. We're both going to disagree with him on the role of the state, as he's far more trusting of his government than we'd ever be, but on guns specifically, I think there is more agreement than disagreement.

Thank you for the dose of objective reality, Dox. I shall govern myself, accordingly.

Just for clarification; in this case we're not talking abut all non-Americans


And sometimes when our international brethren get all anti-American I remind them of our big dick by posting an image of the mighty USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) under my rebuttal. It not only portrays a vulgar display of US military might but the name itself has a special sting to it.
I'll go back under my bridge now and get back to work so maybe I can cut out early this afternoon.

BTW: I've put my war ax with Visagrunt aside for this debate.

Actually, witnessing your terrible arguments makes me feel uncomfortably embarrassed on behalf of the pro-gun crowd. Remember, I haven't really chosen a "side" on this debate so there's nothing for me to get upset about. I'm sure you'll end up choosing a side for me though, so no need to worry.

Really, Dox? I can appreciate arguments that guns deter a lot of crime, possibly even more than they cause, but they certainly facilitate an awful lot of crime too. Every gun crime is as a result of an unhealthy relationship with guns, if the relationship was healthy then the gun wouldn't have been used for crime. Maybe it's a linguistics problem- you could describe Switzerland as having a "gun culture" because of the high gun ownership, but it has a much more healthy relationship with guns. You have major problems with gang shootings, for example. In Switzerland, carrying a gun is seen as a responsibility first, with the concept of it as a "right" being secondary, and safety and discipline are emphasised.
I think it is up for debate whether it would be easier for America to move towards a British/Australian/Canadian/French/German/whatever attitude towards guns (they are dangerous and should only be provided to those who need them) than to a Swiss one. On one hand, once people realise that "second amendment rights" aren't that important, I think America would find itself in the same boat as Britain and Australia. On the other hand, those "second amendment rights" are very deeply rooted for a lot of Americans, so greater respect for the responsibilities associated with these supposed "rights" might be more realistic than acknowledging that "second amendment rights" are of secondary concern, if they are even rights at all.


This blog post contains many citations of the increased fatality of gunshot wounds compared to serious stab wounds: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02 ... ves-00006/
These studies show that fatalities are more likely in armed robbery than non-armed robbery:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/ ... ?ID=108118 "Armed robbery is far more likely to result in the victim's death than is an unarmed robbery."

and a similar pattern in domestic violence:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1588718

The expiration of the AWB lead to about 2,500 extra homicides in Mexico over four years: http://www.econ-jobs.com/research/32941 ... Mexico.pdf

You have a much higher murder rate, and a much higher firearm murder rate, and a much higher firearm ownership rate, than comparable countries. I think you would freely admit that the firearm murder rate is related to the firearm ownership rate. This study says that the murder rate is driven by the firearm murder rate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454
This study corroborates that, and says that increased firearm ownership does not decrease crime. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

You're in favour of saving lives when it suits you, but as soon as your hobby is threatened, you are uninterested. I don't think that's at odds with being cold hearted.

I would have thought that self evident. It refers to the part I kept in.

Saying "the Japanese kill themselves less and they have fewer guns" is equivalent to me saying "Americans murder each other more and they have more guns".

Nobody would be stepped on. People would still be allowed guns if they have a legitimate reason, like the system in the UK. It would save more than dozens, it would save thousands, once you have cut out firearm suicides and accidents.

Yes Dox. You have your priorities mixed up if you think that people's lives are less important than not being recorded. Particularly as the vast majority of cameras exist on private property and are only viewed after the fact of a crime. It is not a Big Brother situation where the government is constantly monitoring what everyone does, it is a situation where footage is checked after a crime is committed to bring criminals to justice.

(As a rather long aside, I can walk to school without being recorded. At school, there are several cameras, all outside. Nobody monitors these cameras. I only know of them being used on two occasions in the seven years I have been there (there are no cameras at my primary school). Once after a large tag was graffitied on the wall, once after a student as assaulted in the car park. Students regularly engage in petty crimes like bunking off school or smoking cigarettes under age and have never been caught by the cameras. After school, I can walk to either of my places of work without being captured on CCTV. There is a single camera on the high street which may be permanently monitored. There is another camera on the bus lane outside my place of work. In one of my places of work, we have upwards of a dozen cameras, which last year lead to goods to the value of my year's wages being reclaimed (though this was inflated by a bunch of idiots who managed to steal a few Kindle Fires without thinking to cover their faces). In my other place of work, we have security cameras to record criminal damage and assaults, but these are not routinely monitored to catch people littering, sneakily using the pitches without paying, or committing other petty crimes. Frankly, I don't think a reasonable person can object to that.)

Well that's fair enough I suppose. Whether a firearm is a "proper tool" seeing as it can't reliably be used to stop rather than hurt (rather than injure, rather than maim, rather than kill) is something I would dispute. I'd also dispute whether the life of the defendant is any more valuable than the life of the attacker, but we'd never reach an agreement there.