The Problem Of Bad Facts About Guns

[suncowiam]

What you call nitpicking, I call elaborating, correcting,
& understanding in the interest of better public policy.
This matters to some of us in this thread. If it doesn't
interest you, why complain? No one cares to hear it.

You don't care to hear it. And that's ok. And do you complain? OH yes you do... The evidence is literally all over this site. So don't start getting personal.

The only fact that needs to be highlighted is that other countries have curbed their gun violence through enforcement of gun control.

They didn't need to further define guns to reduce gun violence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It was wildly inefficient... that's why there were so many wounded as opposed to killed.

Well, I don't know. It was at the extreme range of the type of gun, if I recall right. We don't know if he could the same amount of kills with a semi or sniper setup.
He went for as much lead down range in a short period of time as he could. That is one way to do it.

 

[Revoltingest]

And do you complain?

Not in threads you start.
Why pollute mine, eh.

The only fact that needs to be highlighted is that other countries have curbed their gun violence through enforcement of gun control.

This kind of intentional ignorance harms
discussion that could lead to reasonable
regulation.
You could start your own thread limited to
your singular fact. I promise to avoid it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fine. If the kill rate doesn't fit then you have to acquit.

I think we both agree a mass murderer is not going to choose a flintlock to mass murder people.

From my perspective, everything is in context to gun violence. I don't think any one has been killed with a flintlock for who knows how long so is there any value to discuss flintlocks.

Or do we have to nitpick on definitions like this thread is trying to do?

Well, no we don't in an ideal world and yes, we do. Because some people don't understand guns and that can lead to counter productive bans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not in threads you start.
Why pollute mine, eh.

Well, I get you. Yet it is not your thread as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I get you. Yet it is not your thread as such.

It seems that you object to my attempting to keep
this thread focused upon useful facts. This is so
often the problem with fervent anti-gunners...just
playing pigeon chess because you think you alone
have The Truth

 

[suncowiam]

Not in threads you start.
Why pollute mine, eh.

This kind of intentional ignorance harms
discussion that could lead to reasonable
regulation.
You could start your own thread limited to
your singular fact. I promise to avoid it.

I do not need to make my own thread.

A fact about guns is how other countries have curbed gun violence through gun control.

No one is polluting your thread. I have added to it.

Your refusal to accept my fact is your own doing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems that you object to my attempting to keep
this thread focused upon useful facts. This is so
often the problem with fervent anti-gunners...just
playing pigeon chess because you think you alone
have The Truth

Well, you are actually doing a decent job. But you might be counter productive with the term fervent anti-gunner. Remember abortion and that it is not about facts. It is about values.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not need to make my own thread.

A fact about guns is how other countries have curbed gun violence through gun control.

No one is polluting your thread. I have added to it.

Your refusal to accept my fact is your own doing.

Well, in fact the USA is not starting from the same level of guns out there as other countries did, so it does make a difference.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not need to make my own thread.

And so you complain here.
How productive.

 

[suncowiam]

Well, in fact the USA is not starting from the same level of guns out there as other countries did, so it does make a difference.

Please clarify with data?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you are actually doing a decent job. But you might be counter productive with the term fervent anti-gunner.

It's a more polite term than "slavering hostile obtuse gun grabber".
That one might be a rule violation.

 

[suncowiam]

And so you complain here.
How productive.

OMG. Why don't you go to the admins like you normally do and get it arbitrated.

I personally don't think I complained, but whatever. I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And so you complain here.
How productive.

Well, a productive answer would be that the USA is in another place that other countries when they banned guns as they did. Use the facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why don't you go to the admins like you normally do and get it arbitrated.

I rarely ever report a post.
Never one of yours.
Do you feel persecuted?
If so, it ain't me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a more polite term than "slavering hostile obtuse gun grabber".
That one might be a rule violation.

Yeah, that is not nice. One in your thread about vikings claimed that to hold another view than his, met that the person doing that is a psychopath. Well, now I am a psychopath.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, a productive answer would be that the USA is in another place that other countries when they banned guns as they did. Use the facts.

If facts were really important to you, you'd address
the plethora that apply. I recommend considering
the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS rulings on it, the
content & efficacy of the 1994 law, etc, etc.

Don't just praise facts...use some in a cogent
argument for a change.

 

[suncowiam]

It seems that you object to my attempting to keep
this thread focused upon useful facts. This is so
often the problem with fervent anti-gunners...just
playing pigeon chess because you think you alone
have The Truth

Why don't you actually address the fact that so many countries with hardened and enforced gun control measures actually have been able to reduce gun violence?

The truth is based on reality here...

But I know where this leads, and it will lead right back to the second amendment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please clarify with data?

Simple. You want to control guns in the USA with the current amount. So all other countries who have done that started with the same amount per capita. You know that is not true. So they started from another level.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If facts were really important to you, you'd address
the plethora that apply. I recommend considering
the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS rulings on it, the
content & efficacy of the 1994 law, etc, etc.

Don't just praise facts...use some in a cogent
argument for a change.

See, you can do it.