Another Poor Gun Victim of Violent Spree

[zyxt9]

it already was over.

you lost.

If u say so, it must be true, right?

Whatever helps u sleep.

 

[zyxt9]

Hey champ, in all seriousness, u should read the other thread. U seem to appreciate intellectual things, I think u would find it interesting.

 

[Michchamp]

If u say so, it must be true, right?

Whatever helps u sleep.

what I post on the internet has no bearing whatsoever on whether I sleep well at night. If I eat too much sugar before bed, I usually struggle; likewise if I go to bed too early.

 

[Thumb]

Lmfao @ u

Yes, I commonly.use accepted forms of internet shorthand, especially when using my phone.

If that's the best comeback u have then it seems the debate is over. Not saying I won, just saying there must not b nething left to say. Fine by me, but please b sure to read my new thread and hopefully u will be enlightened and find hope for the future, that gun violence will eventually be stopped.

Yes, you obviously won, because it was such a win/lose topic.

Well, good luck out there Mr. John 'Yippiekiyaymotherfucker' McClain, if it's one thing TV and movies has taught you, is that all a man needs is his trusty pistol to come out on top in any given situation. Because the good guy always wins, amirite? :cheers:

 

[zyxt9]

Speaking of reading comprehension, did I not say the debate is over and NOT because I won but that there was just nothing more to contribute?

Then there was the whole bit about me NOT carrying a gun, so I am NOT the John McClain type. I just believe that those who decide to carry have every right and if the shit ever does hit the fan, their very slight chance of surviving by taking action is greater than the inability to take any action at all by those who, like me, are not carrying.

Maybe those points will be more easily understood this time. If not I can try rewording them again.

 

[KAWDUP]

it already was over.

you lost.

right . . because of his strawman argument? If that is true, you have lost all your arguments lately.

 

[Michchamp]

right . . because of his strawman argument? If that is true, you have lost all your arguments lately.

he made no other argument, hence he lost. You can go try to follow along if you care that much.

Can you find some examples of me making straw arguments and post them?

You seem so sure of it, but in my experience you typically don't add much more than reading the odd post here and getting upset that some "stupid liberal" has the gall to question something you believe in or agree with... at which point you resort to name calling, personal attacks, etc. etc. etc. and then start hemming and hawing about semantics when you get called on it. "That wasn't a personal attack, but when you did it to me it was a personal attack. I didn't start it you did bloo bloo bloo."

 

[Thumb]

he made no other argument, hence he lost. You can go try to follow along if you care that much.

Can you find some examples of me making straw arguments and post them?

You seem so sure of it, but in my experience you typically don't add much more than reading the odd post here and getting upset that some "stupid liberal" has the gall to question something you believe in or agree with... at which point you resort to name calling, personal attacks, etc. Etc. Etc. And then start hemming and hawing about semantics when you get called on it. "that wasn't a personal attack, but when you did it to me it was a personal attack. I didn't start it you did bloo bloo bloo."

qft

 

[KAWDUP]

qft

. . . or not.

Answer to both posts:

Name calling? Really - that is all you got?

Since you asked i will go get Champ's latest strawman about gun control. Stay tuned. I'm sure you must be hanging on my every word.

I had to chuckle. Here is my version.

"You seem so sure of it, but in my experience you typically add less than me and get upset that some "stupid conservative" has the gall to question something you believe in or agree with... at which point you resort to name calling, personal attacks, etc. Etc. Etc. "

Show how I am even the least bit upset at some stupid thing you said? I would be upset all the friggin' time. (do you know the difference between an insult and name calling?). Did I call you anything? I didn't think so. Did I insult you. Of course - isn't that what most everyone does when insulted or trolled on a messageboard?

Here is the difference between my "name calling" and others here:

You and others (not paraphrased): You fucking moron - you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. & . . . what a piece of shit liar. All you add to the conversation is name calling . . . ", Blah blah fuckin' blah - I'm sure you get the idea.

Mine: "Once again you have mis-stated my position - I begin to wonder if you even read my post" . . . and "typical elitest crap from you" . . . etc.

I have always answered in kind. If I make a sarcastic joke - of course respond in kind. WTF - are you an adult?

Who trolled me by mis-stating what I explained several times was my position on the "bazooka" comment? You draw me in with inane off-handed remarks, and when I answer back in kind you get all butt-hurt. Seriously, if you don't want me to respond to you, quit baiting me. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about crying how I resort to semantics in an argument. If you actually responded to what I posted in the first place - it probably wouldn't go there.

 

[KAWDUP]

The latest strawman from Champ:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAWDUP
Decreased natiowide as an average. Wasn't all good news in big violent cities however. Google searches are KEWL, no?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most...america-832351

Societal decline has been pretty steady, but it isn't completely due to violent crime, assault weapon use, or even just our woeful lack of good education available to everyone. It is due to the demise of the family unit. I will expound on that all day if you like. Just ask.

BTW - the statements you quoted are right on. Didn't think you needed a pat on the back for quoting some great people on the subject.

Has it come far afield from what it was? Again I didn't think the obvious was necessary. The reason I didn't particularly respond to that question is it is uninteresting. How is this different from most lobbying groups today? From Unions to farmers it is always about the money and what the government can do for a select few. How far afield are those lobbies?

If you say less than the NRA, I say take your blinders off.

Your response:
I would say less than the NRA. Not all lobbyists or trade groups create equal results. There's a big difference between pushing for unrestricted gun ownership which results in a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to make the manufacturers that fund you a lot more money, and what unions or farmers do.

you keep citing large urban areas as reasons for justifying increased gun ownership, but in my experience, it's not residents of low-income urban areas who are members of the NRA and the ones vocally opposing gun control... it's rural/suburban whites who live in relatively low crime areas. there's a fundamental error in your logic here.

. . . so regardless, the factual basis for opposing gun control is bankrupt and cannot explain the inconsistency between the Pre-1990 NRA & and Post-90 NRA's statements. Nor does it refute the quote from Justice Burger, or the one in the article I cited.

Out of curiosity, did you even read those quotes & the article I cited, before deciding to plunge head-first into calling me an extremist and cranking out the bullshit false analogies to crime in Detroit and Chicago?

Another of my responses:
Not sure I see where this is coming from. There is a leap of logic connecting my messing with your sarcastic warzone comments, with somehow that I'm pushing unrestricted gun ownership. How does anything I said conflict with your point of suburban whites wanting unrestricted gun ownership? I am not advocating that. Why do you think I am?

Is this just a way of equating the logical position I took that a ban on a particular assault weapon wouldn't do all that much good at curbing violent crime? If, so nothing you said refutes what I said.

. . . and I can tell you there is at least one lobby who is pushing for things that help make our kids obese, and I will bet you way way more people die from heart disease than firearms deaths.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe trying to curb gun ownership is a good thing, and the NRA does nothing to help that position. Still think you are making too many conclusions based on suppositions about my opinions.



Bolded above is your strawman.
In any case - this is one of the more subtle examples, but I don't have time to go back into the "bazooka" thread, to find a more egregious example.

 

[zyxt9]

i've noticed neither thumb nor champ appear willing nor capable of reading my other thread, or at a minimum are too dumbfounded to submit even their normal responses. maybe they are just pissed that my argument that the way to fix gun violence is by putting computer chips in people's heads is making more progress in reality than their bitching and moaning about gun violence. the FACT that rats were able to communicate telepathically by researchers at Duke and Brazil is a tip of the iceberg moment in human technology evolution.

regardless of their reasoning for not responding, i just want the record to show that what i proposed a couple months ago is making even more headway. memristors are continuing to advance, and now the telepathic ability between rats using computers has been demonstrated.

will the solution be implemented in the next year, or even 10? doubtful. within 50 has a very high probability. in fact i would put forth a wager for Vegas to consider, what will happen first...computer chips in the brain eliminate gun violence in the US or the US builds a space station on Mars. i'm leaning toward the computer chips winning that race. granted much depends on how much money is generated toward each endeavor.

hey, maybe instead of crying about the gun violence, they can start fundraisers to bring about this solution much faster! now that would be a worthy use of their time and money, as opposed to their whining and accomplishing nothing, because outlawing guns will never solve the problem due to the illegal guns still able to be used by the people with the mental state that makes the inanimate gun a lethal weapon.

but, all i do is use strawman arguments to debate my side. lmfao!

 

[Michchamp]

The latest strawman from Champ:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAWDUP
Decreased natiowide as an average. Wasn't all good news in big violent cities however. Google searches are KEWL, no?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/most...america-832351

Societal decline has been pretty steady, but it isn't completely due to violent crime, assault weapon use, or even just our woeful lack of good education available to everyone. It is due to the demise of the family unit. I will expound on that all day if you like. Just ask.

BTW - the statements you quoted are right on. Didn't think you needed a pat on the back for quoting some great people on the subject.

Has it come far afield from what it was? Again I didn't think the obvious was necessary. The reason I didn't particularly respond to that question is it is uninteresting. How is this different from most lobbying groups today? From Unions to farmers it is always about the money and what the government can do for a select few. How far afield are those lobbies?

If you say less than the NRA, I say take your blinders off.

Your response:
I would say less than the NRA. Not all lobbyists or trade groups create equal results. There's a big difference between pushing for unrestricted gun ownership which results in a lot of innocent people getting killed in order to make the manufacturers that fund you a lot more money, and what unions or farmers do.

you keep citing large urban areas as reasons for justifying increased gun ownership, but in my experience, it's not residents of low-income urban areas who are members of the NRA and the ones vocally opposing gun control... it's rural/suburban whites who live in relatively low crime areas. there's a fundamental error in your logic here.

. . . so regardless, the factual basis for opposing gun control is bankrupt and cannot explain the inconsistency between the Pre-1990 NRA & and Post-90 NRA's statements. Nor does it refute the quote from Justice Burger, or the one in the article I cited.

Out of curiosity, did you even read those quotes & the article I cited, before deciding to plunge head-first into calling me an extremist and cranking out the bullshit false analogies to crime in Detroit and Chicago?

Another of my responses:
Not sure I see where this is coming from. There is a leap of logic connecting my messing with your sarcastic warzone comments, with somehow that I'm pushing unrestricted gun ownership. How does anything I said conflict with your point of suburban whites wanting unrestricted gun ownership? I am not advocating that. Why do you think I am?

Is this just a way of equating the logical position I took that a ban on a particular assault weapon wouldn't do all that much good at curbing violent crime? If, so nothing you said refutes what I said.

. . . and I can tell you there is at least one lobby who is pushing for things that help make our kids obese, and I will bet you way way more people die from heart disease than firearms deaths.

If it makes you feel any better, I believe trying to curb gun ownership is a good thing, and the NRA does nothing to help that position. Still think you are making too many conclusions based on suppositions about my opinions.



Bolded above is your strawman.
In any case - this is one of the more subtle examples, but I don't have time to go back into the "bazooka" thread, to find a more egregious example.

if you go back and read that thread, you'll see that was not a straw argument.

you couldn't address the glaring inconsistency between the past NRA presidents' comments that restrictions on gun ownership were rational and necessary, and Wayne LaPierre's current unhinged ranting about giving guns to teachers, the president planning to seize our weapons, tyranny's only opponent being your local NRA member with a .22... etc. etc. so you started posting about crime statistics... which have of course gone down nationwide since then, which didn't support your argument either.

BTW... you never did tell us anything about your theory of how society is collapsing because of a lack of good old traditional families.

 

[Michchamp]

i've noticed neither thumb nor champ appear willing nor capable of reading my other thread, or at a minimum are too dumbfounded to submit even their normal responses. maybe they are just pissed that my argument that the way to fix gun violence is by putting computer chips in people's heads is making more progress in reality than their bitching and moaning about gun violence. the FACT that rats were able to communicate telepathically by researchers at Duke and Brazil is a tip of the iceberg moment in human technology evolution.

regardless of their reasoning for not responding, i just want the record to show that what i proposed a couple months ago is making even more headway. memristors are continuing to advance, and now the telepathic ability between rats using computers has been demonstrated.

...

but, all i do is use strawman arguments to debate my side. lmfao!

whoa... wait a minute. You want to discuss rats communicating telepathically with human researchers here... in a gun control thread?

I'm sorry, pal. We can discuss science fiction and future technology in the off-topic section, but there are some problems with gun-ownership, and gun sales that affect this country NOW, and have some very un-futuristic legislative fixes that are probably more realistic to consider.

I'm also not clear what exactly you're advocating here... are you in favor of microchips that manage a person's decision making process or are you using their existence as an argument against gun control?

 

[Thumb]

i've noticed neither thumb nor champ appear willing nor capable of reading my other thread, or at a minimum are too dumbfounded to submit even their normal responses. maybe they are just pissed that my argument that the way to fix gun violence is by putting computer chips in people's heads is making more progress in reality than their bitching and moaning about gun violence. the FACT that rats were able to communicate telepathically by researchers at Duke and Brazil is a tip of the iceberg moment in human technology evolution.

regardless of their reasoning for not responding, i just want the record to show that what i proposed a couple months ago is making even more headway. memristors are continuing to advance, and now the telepathic ability between rats using computers has been demonstrated.

will the solution be implemented in the next year, or even 10? doubtful. within 50 has a very high probability. in fact i would put forth a wager for Vegas to consider, what will happen first...computer chips in the brain eliminate gun violence in the US or the US builds a space station on Mars. i'm leaning toward the computer chips winning that race. granted much depends on how much money is generated toward each endeavor.

hey, maybe instead of crying about the gun violence, they can start fundraisers to bring about this solution much faster! now that would be a worthy use of their time and money, as opposed to their whining and accomplishing nothing, because outlawing guns will never solve the problem due to the illegal guns still able to be used by the people with the mental state that makes the inanimate gun a lethal weapon.

but, all i do is use strawman arguments to debate my side. lmfao!

I read your other thread, I didn't comment because I found it silly and pointless.

 

[Thumb]

MY QFT response to what champ said is spot on.

KAWDUP you do exactly what he said in the part I highlighted, you resort to name calling or insults, and then when someone says it back you act like you're innocent.

 

[KAWDUP]

if you go back and read that thread, you'll see that was not a straw argument.

you couldn't address the glaring inconsistency between the past NRA presidents' comments that restrictions on gun ownership were rational and necessary, and Wayne LaPierre's current unhinged ranting about giving guns to teachers, the president planning to seize our weapons, tyranny's only opponent being your local NRA member with a .22... etc. etc. so you started posting about crime statistics... which have of course gone down nationwide since then, which didn't support your argument either.

BTW... you never did tell us anything about your theory of how society is collapsing because of a lack of good old traditional families.

I couldn't address what? . . . completely nuts. It seems you are the one who needs to go back and read it. I most certainly did address it. You asked if I agreed with those statements made by those former leaders - I said of course I do (I didn't think you needed a pat on the back for realizing how different the mission of the NRA seems to be today) - but I also said the differences in what is stated as the mission today is just as far afield of the original mission as many lobbies are, and even mentioned one that is more dangerous than the NRA.

Also the statistics you clamor about referred to violent crime going down nationwide, but not in inner city urban areas - or are you really going to admit making blind comments without actually visiting the link I posted?

On the decline of the family unit as the basic building block of society? You never asked. I figured that was fodder for another thread. The difference between today's society and society even just 20 years ago is the makeup, values, and interactions of the family unit and further - the interactions of the family unit with the surrounding community.

Evidence of a steady decline and a direct causal relationship with some of the things touched on in that thread:

1) The out-of-control divorce rate.
2) The erosion of having the parents and the school working together to benefit the children and the community.
3) Lower and lower expectations of children as their value system is formed.
4) The decrease in the need for the individual to take responsiblity for actions within that family unit and in the surrounding community - and parents who worked to make individuals take more of it.
5) How often the family does things together on a regular basis. E.g. eating dinner, family discussions, and yes even faith based activities.
6) The ridiculous inundation of political correctness.

When one devalues and breaks down the basic unit, it is quite understandable how society as a whole will decline. If you need for me to make the connection back to what was being discussed in that thread, I can do that, but maybe that is so far away from anything to do with abuse of guns and violent crime in your book, it would be fruitless to start that discussion here?

 

[KAWDUP]

MY QFT response to what champ said is spot on.

KAWDUP you do exactly what he said in the part I highlighted, you resort to name calling or insults, and then when someone says it back you act like you're innocent.

Point to a name I called you? Otherwise, I call bullshit.

Also, as far as insults, that is even more bullshit, because much more likely, an insult flew my way - many times even more than one. What you are saying is exactly the pot calling the kettle black.

So, it is not spot on and you saying QFT means next to nothing, because if anything, you are much guiltier for that than I ever am.

You can't claim that you are "answering my stupidity", when stupidity is all around in the thread to begin with. You aren't possibly admitting that my insults in response to your attacks are better than yours, are you?

. . . I didn't think so. :*)

As I have said many times, you only need to read what you wrote directly in response to something I posted to see why me (or anyone for that matter) would respond as I do and did.

 

[Thumb]

No, I'm just saying when insults happen, often started by you, and you recieve them back you claim innocence.

I'm not saying anything about your responses or anything else, you're reading far too much into this.


EDIT: here was what a quick google search turned up: http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=7025&page=7

Here's another: http://www.detroitsportsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5870

 

[redandguilty]

it already was over.

you lost.

Careful. Danth's Law...

 

[Michchamp]

I couldn't address what? . . . completely nuts. It seems you are the one who needs to go back and read it. I most certainly did address it. You asked if I agreed with those statements made by those former leaders - I said of course I do (I didn't think you needed a pat on the back for realizing how different the mission of the NRA seems to be today) - but I also said the differences in what is stated as the mission today is just as far afield of the original mission as many lobbies are, and even mentioned one that is more dangerous than the NRA.

Also the statistics you clamor about referred to violent crime going down nationwide, but not in inner city urban areas - or are you really going to admit making blind comments without actually visiting the link I posted?

On the decline of the family unit as the basic building block of society? You never asked. I figured that was fodder for another thread. The difference between today's society and society even just 20 years ago is the makeup, values, and interactions of the family unit and further - the interactions of the family unit with the surrounding community.

Evidence of a steady decline and a direct causal relationship with some of the things touched on in that thread:

1) The out-of-control divorce rate.
2) The erosion of having the parents and the school working together to benefit the children and the community.
3) Lower and lower expectations of children as their value system is formed.
4) The decrease in the need for the individual to take responsiblity for actions within that family unit and in the surrounding community - and parents who worked to make individuals take more of it.
5) How often the family does things together on a regular basis. E.g. eating dinner, family discussions, and yes even faith based activities.
6) The ridiculous inundation of political correctness.

When one devalues and breaks down the basic unit, it is quite understandable how society as a whole will decline. If you need for me to make the connection back to what was being discussed in that thread, I can do that, but maybe that is so far away from anything to do with abuse of guns and violent crime in your book, it would be fruitless to start that discussion here?

violent crime rates have actually gone down everywhere. even in Chicago. there are yearly spikes here and there, but the general trend is negative.

some of your theories about the breakdown of the family are impossible to test. as far as parents working with the teachers, families eating dinner together more often, decrease in individual responsibility, personal values, etc. it's tough to say. those are anecdotal. "Ridiculous inundation of political correctness." WTH does that even mean? You're just repeating buzz words now.

Divorce rates... okay. whether that leads to more crime, I don't know. Just from my own experience, kids of divorced parents grew up a little quicker, were more independent... but not criminals. But then again, this may be a factor of the environment my peers and I grew up in. So maybe divorce wasn't the issue as much as low-income, lack of education, etc.

maybe if you stepped out of your GOP fantasy booth and looked at some actual statistical trends and logic to explain cause and effect we could actually discuss this.