Tuesday, October 16, 2018 • Morning Edition • "Guest-starring Wolverine's cold, dead corpse!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Gun Ads

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

Rockman

Rain Partier

Postby Rockman » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:26 am

Jubilee wrote:
Anecdotal evidence like the graph showing that the more guns a country has the more deaths it has?

Or the figures that show America is far and away killing more people than other countries.

Or the fact that 900 people are dead from guns since Sandy Hook?

I mean it's not really anecdotal is it.


I'm talking about you posting news story after news story about shootings like they prove a point.

And your graph is worthless, you can't just compare one nation to another on one issue and really get the whole picture of what is going on there. You simplify the culture to the point where you pretend that the only difference between America and Australia is gun ownership or something. Ignoring the billion other factors at work there.


You can however look at what is happening and has happened in America over the past 20 years. But we've gone down this road time and time again and you ignore any piece of fact that doesn't fit your agenda so it's pretty pointless to get into it again.

So go ahead post some more macabre articles to change the hearts and minds of no one here.
User avatar

Rockman

Rain Partier

Postby Rockman » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:28 am

Jubilee wrote:Also if you are criticising someone else for appearing stupid, I'd try and learn the difference between their/there.


It's funny that you try to call me out on a common grammatical error when you've just misspelled "criticizing" :lol:

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:54 am

Rockman wrote:
It's funny that you try to call me out on a common grammatical error when you've just misspelled "criticizing" :lol:


Erm......

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:56 am

Rockman wrote:
I'm talking about you posting news story after news story about shootings like they prove a point.

And your graph is worthless, you can't just compare one nation to another on one issue and really get the whole picture of what is going on there. You simplify the culture to the point where you pretend that the only difference between America and Australia is gun ownership or something. Ignoring the billion other factors at work there.


You can however look at what is happening and has happened in America over the past 20 years. But we've gone down this road time and time again and you ignore any piece of fact that doesn't fit your agenda so it's pretty pointless to get into it again.

So go ahead post some more macabre articles to change the hearts and minds of no one here.


Image

There is a pretty clear relation here Rockman and I think you'd have to have an agenda to miss it.

In America in the last 20 years there's been hundreds of thousands killed from guns. You're on almost 1,000 since Sandy Hook.

I'm posting articles in the hope that one person changes their mind a little, because if they have than there may be a small chance that someones children doesn't have to die.

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:57 am

In the interest of fairness I'll post this as well:

Image
User avatar

achilles

Rain Partier

Postby achilles » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:01 am

Just to clear up another terminology problem/lie, there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". If you are a federally licensed firearms dealer with a table at a gun show, you can't suddenly sell guns without some kind of background check.

What the Dems are talking about in typically misleading/ ignorant way are deals between private sellers, which can take place anywhere. Those don't require background checks, largely because private sellers lack the means to do them.
User avatar

LobsterJ

phrase IV

Postby LobsterJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:05 am

Rockman wrote:
It's funny that you try to call me out on a common grammatical error when you've just misspelled "criticizing" :lol:


:smt017

I hate when I can't tell if people are joking or not. If so, jolly good show!
User avatar

muddyglass

dr. strangelove

Postby muddyglass » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:32 am

Jubilee wrote:
Image

There is a pretty clear relation here Rockman and I think you'd have to have an agenda to miss it.


what happened in all the other countries in the world not shown in this graph? in the earlier graph you posted, the data point for mexico for example would clearly go against the red trend line shown above. why should mexico (and possibly other similar countries) be considered unimportant?

does this graph eliminate data from suicides? if a person wishes to kill himself, then the choice of using a gun or a rope or other means clearly should not matter and gun deaths by suicide, including suicide by cop, should be eliminated from the data pool. among those who died violent deaths by gun fire, how many were violent criminals versus innocent people? on the other hand, does this graph also include homocides committed using other types of weapons, say knives for example? why should death by stabbing be excluded from your analysis?

lastly, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. how do you know it was the possession of guns that caused people to kill each other? how do you measure violent tendencies in people?

please explain.

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:37 am

A) I don't know why Mexico was included. Maybe because it's not as civilised as the others

B) I do not know if it's gun homicides or gun deaths, I don't like to differentiate between the two. I think access to guns means there will be a higher suicide rates

C) knife deaths aren't included. For obvious reasons.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:46 am

Rockman wrote:
It's funny that you try to call me out on a common grammatical error when you've just misspelled "criticizing" :lol:


Only Americans spell things like crticizing with a z. S is the preferred British way. Not joking. Another difference is words like canceled (two ls in the British version).
User avatar

muddyglass

dr. strangelove

Postby muddyglass » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:03 pm

Jubilee wrote:A) I don't know why Mexico was included. Maybe because it's not as civilised as the others

B) I do not know if it's gun homicides or gun deaths, I don't like to differentiate between the two. I think access to guns means there will be a higher suicide rates

C) knife deaths aren't included. For obvious reasons.


if people are going to kill each other, then arguably the means by which they do so should not matter. you'd have to look at the bigger picture of all homocides and then find some way to show it was the prevalence of guns that caused a greater amount of the underlying violent tendencies in people overall. fbi statistics have also shown that violent crime has been going down in the united states over the years. perhaps things are not as clear cut as you make it seem.

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:06 pm

Just posted at another board that blunt object killings attribute for about 1/16 deaths for every gun death.

Obviously it's easier to kill with a gun over a knife.
User avatar

Beast In Show

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby Beast In Show » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:41 pm

Jubilee wrote:In the interest of fairness I'll post this as well:

Image


Good on ya, yay fairness! :D

The second amendment is a check to balance the potential rise of tyrannical power in the federal government. Civilians are expected to be capable of forming militia's to deal with threats from within the government. They are allowed to personally own military grade weapons so that they can retain parity with the government's standing army before they join a militia, so if the worst comes to pass and the call goes out, civilians will be trained and familiar with the use of these weapons ahead of time.

Sensationalizing media and sympathetic photo opportunities are how totalitarians rationalize disarmament before they can enact fascist rule. Prohibition is not the answer to better gun safety because gun owners keep government's honest. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to ensure peace and diplomacy, that's why it works so well between nations.

I'm a libertarian from Canada and I gotta say, people on the left preaching prohibition through fear mongering and emotional manipulation sound just as asinine as the NRA refusing to admit there's room for improvement before 1000 body bags are filled with dead children.

So I'm wondering, what are you trying to accomplish by appealing to your base? Does the fact that fear mongering by the left forces gun sales to skyrocket have any bearing on your position? Do you have any suggestions for a viable compromise that would improve public safety while respecting the 2nd amendment and those who support it?

3MJ

Postby 3MJ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:47 pm

I don't give a shit about the second ammendment. It has no impact off my stance.
User avatar

Beast In Show

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby Beast In Show » Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:53 pm

Jubilee wrote:I don't give a shit about the second ammendment. It has no impact off my stance.


If you don't give a shit about the second amendment then why do you expect anyone else to care about your "stance"? How do you feel about the fact that people who express your stance drive up gun sales after every massacre? Why do you think that by only appealing to your base that the other side will submit and real change will occur?

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], sdsichero, TheLurker and 53 guests