Wednesday, February 10, 2010
You want someathis?
The "Super Majority" never existed. Okay, we got that out of the way.
I have been busy. What with working on my house, doing some pro bono stuff, taking a class (okay, it's only 5 hours on saturday, but it's SCHOOL!) and banging heads with idiots on various blogs, I been bizzzzy.
Now the GOP is saying that if the dems cave on everything they will be "bi-partisan" and work together with them to fuck us some more. I am sick to death of the democratic leadership not being able to understand that they can either play the game the reptilicans play or go home at half-time and watch the rest of the game on the teevee.
The "loyal opposition" (boy, is that an oxymoron) has demonstrated that they have zero interest in doing anything that won't benefit the people who own the HMO's, insurance companies and Big Pharma. Meantime they have managed to morph the failure of Bushco into Obama's problem.
I used to blame this on the pols, but I can see that it's got at least as much to do with the idiots who watch and listen to the talking heads and form their uncritical opinions from the sound bites they get from those folks.
I talk to a lot of people who tell me that they don't want to do politics because it's too nasty. Well, fuck that. Yes, it is nasty, but it won't get less nasty because you don't participate.
The gunnutz like to make a big deal about how the German people were unable to resist Hitler because he took their gunz away. The reality is this: Hitler took the guns away in 1938, from SOME of the people (jews). The German citizens gave away their rights to self-determination when they failed to resist Hitler's criminal manipulation of the electoral process--between 1929 and 1933.
If you don't fight you still lose when the reactionaries take over the government. Be loud and impolite, the GOP has shown that it's a good strategy.
BTW, there's apparently a push on by the NRA and it's sturmabteilung to make sure that Starbucks welcomes gun toting latte drinkers into its shops. I think their coffee sucks anyway, but if I liked it I would be in favor of not buying it to see if their support of the rights of a vocal, petulant minority will supercede their desire to make a profit. the gunnutz say a boycott would never work. Maybe, maybe not, I'm not going to be one of their customers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
249 comments:
1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»I drink a lot of starbuck in Tokyo, but if they start allowing people to pack heat in their outlets in the United States just because the NRA pushes them to,I will never touch the stuff again.
I don't muck with Starbucks because Mrs. Bukko and I got onnathese Down Under, and brought it with us Up Over, even though we hadda buy a 3,000-watt Aussie-to-North American voltage converter to run the thing. For a place that thinks it's got good coffee, Vancouver has a lotta pisswater javajoints. (We had to patronize them during the two months it took for the ship with all our stuff to arrive here.) I hope Seattle's coffee is better whenever I make a road trip down there.
As for gunnutz, Canuckrainia is fulla guns, but for some reason, people here do not seem to be as hung up on them as Merkins. Maybe Canucks have big-enough penises. (The ones I've seen in hospital here look pretty standard, though.)
Weer'd Beard:
I don't come to your blog and you're not going to be welcome here.
You mock us, Red Demo, but ever since we manly Americans became Teabaggers, baristas have been all threateney and inpertinenty. They hit on us! They don't give correct change! Some of them have immigranty skin color!
You can have my gun when I stop being a fear-filled, other-hating coward.
Gentlemen:
If you have the time and inclination, check out this blog:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com
He has a tireless bunch of Type2A's over there who never weary of correcting those of us who think that living without a houseful of guns might actually be possible.
I should have added that Mikeb30200 is not one of the gunlovers.
Why are you afraid of me?
Weer'd Beard:
Fear has nothing to do with it. I do not stay away from other blogs because you and mikey and others who love gunz and hate anything that might cost you, personally, some money (even if on many arguments, such as healthcare, you argue from abject ignorance of reality against your own self-interest).
I have told you and mikey (and the same rule applies to anyone else) your gunaganda will not be tolerated on this blog. If you can't understand a statement as simple and transparent as that one, you're hopeless.
And please don't tell me it's unfair--I'm totally aware of the "unfairness". I've got neighbors that are nice folks; folks I can chat with or even ask in for a drink or some chow. There are other neighbors that I have to live near, but not with--you and mikey are that latter sort of neighbor.
So it's not apropreate for me to correct factual errors made on your blog?
Weer'd Beard said...
So it's not apropreate for me to correct factual errors made on your blog?
No, but it is appropriate for me to correct your spelling. Sheesh.
Demo, at least the trolls at my old blog could spell. I mean, they were equally unintelligible, but their spelling was immaculate.
Awww Cute! Somebody being rude and petty calling me a troll!
How Ironic!
My trolls comment in Chinese and sell fancy shoes and drugs!
I had no idea about this bringing guns to $tarbuck$ plan. I am a loyal Dunkin Donuts customer (even before they briefly supported Palestinian rights), but once stopped in the $tarbuck$ near brown and succeeded in obtaining a plastic cup with water for free. They didn't charge for the ice either.
But never again will I enter the premises, if they start encouraging armed drinking.
Nomi, as I attempted to correct before, but Demo does not appreciate reality being injected into his narrative.
Starbucks is NOT encouraging ANYTHING. Simply the Brady Campaign has asked their corporate management to ban openly carried firearms from their restaurants.
To day carrying firearms in Starbucks is 100% legal, and in all places where carrying a firearm is legal, and Starbucks has existed (including their very first store in Seattle) the two have coexisted without incident.
Not being a coffee drinker, nor being a fan of how they make their coffee, or their prices, I am not, nor will be a Starbucks customer.
That being said I am pleased to see they haven't caved for the sake of ignorant fear-mongering.
Also FYI, as far as I know the NRA had nothing to do with any of this.
Demo doesn't want you to read this, so he will delete my comment.
Weer'd Beard:
I don't care if you want to "correct" my errors. You can do that at Mikeb30200's or Southtern Beales, to your heart's content. What part of I don't want your gun rants here do you not get? I mean it's pretty straight forward on my part. I don't want your's, mikey's, or a number of other folks comments about your obsession with gunz on THIS blog.
You're welcome to come here and talk about genuine policy issues (make sure you bring ALL the facts), as long as it's not about gunz.
Perhaps you think my telling you that your gun rants are not welcome here somehow violates your 2nd or even your 1st amendment rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a democracy. I get to decide what happens here. You can say anything you like. If what you say violates the letter, or spirit, of what I've told you are the rules, expect to see it gone.
You can be assured that my few regular readers are well versed on
As I was saying:
You can rest assured that my few regular readers are quite intelligent people who can find out all they need to know about the Starbuck's situation without me feeding them lines.
As for the NRA's involvement in the Starbucks thing, this:
"Members, gun owners, and all freedom-loving citizens should contact Starbucks to thank them for complying with state law, and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. Click here to do so."
is from here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5399
That might be a totally nefarious hackjob by the Brady Campaign but I sorta doubt it.
Please note, the post I am referring to was deleted. I have it copied if I need to refer back to it.
Hey, Demo, you bring up the gun issue, I'll talk guns. You wanna talk about how much you hate Republicans and people in general, I'll leave you alone to your hermitage.
Weer'd Beard:
I don't hate people, in general or otherwise. I think the GOP, which has been listing towards insanity since at least 1980 has had a fullblown psychotic break since 2000. It has become the party of Palin and The Notplumber. Whatever it might once have been the GOP is certainly not conservative in any generally accepted sense of the word. The Party of Lincoln has become in more or less equal parts, the Party of JESUS, the Party of Sara, The Party of bigotry and the Party of Intolerance. You may disagree (although I thought that both you and mikey had defined yourselves as big L libertarians at one point) but the Republican Party has become an organization that is more interested in ideological purity than anything else and fucking the rest of the country to grind their axe with Obama.
You call those of us who are not on your side, "Obama Marxists". You have no fucking idea what you're talking about when you use such a label. Marxism has nothing to do with the current politics or policies of the administration.
After 8 years of what may well go down in history as the worst period of misgovernance in U.S.history (including the Hoover administration) the GOP--and their cheerleaders are NOW concerned about reinging in a free spending government. Color me incredulous.
Point out all of the wonderful things that Bushco did in the time they had the levers of power.
BTW, are you still going to be saying that the NRA has nothing to do with the Starbuck's situation?
I think any time some stupid hillbilly cousinfuckkker brings a gun into a Starbux, everyone should scream and shout "OH MY GOD! HE'S GOT A GUN!" and run out of the place. Preferably without paying for what they ordered. Or at least knocking over some tables and maybe breaking some windows on the way out.
Of course, I'll never have to worry about doing that myself, because I moved to a country where people are not fuckkking insane. And the country where I lived before that was sane too. Shame about the U.S., though.
Why can't gun nutz just walkkk into Starbugs with the penises openly displayed? Oh yeah -- because all the women (and the gay guys) would laugh at their teeny weiners. So they fantasize about wearing a weapon to disguise their manly shortcummings. (Yeah, they suffer from premature ejaculation, too.)
"BTW, are you still going to be saying that the NRA has nothing to do with the Starbuck's situation?"
'bout as much as I or you have to do with it...we both wrote blog posts too!
Also, Super Classy Bukko, you've quite the deep thinker!
Weer'd Beard:
Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance? The NRA, on their website, urges their members to contact Starbucks and you compare that to one of us talking about it on a blog? Seriously, you can actually believe that they are not "involved"?
Since the other items I mentioned in my last comment do not evince any reply on your part, may I just take it that you have nothing to say about them.
Bukko is, actually, quite the deep thinker. He's also quite sarcastic.
So do lots of blogs, and you're asking people to boycott them.
What are we missing here?
Well, Demo, let me know when amateur hour is over. By which I mean, let me know when “Weer’d Beard” has found someone else to harass. I don’t waste my time with folks like this.
Bukko is, actually, quite the deep thinker. He's also quite sarcastic.
My wife says the same thing! Only, she leaves off the "deep thinker" part...
Weer'd Beard:
Your original comment:
"Also FYI, as far as I know the NRA had nothing to do with any of this."
is factually incorrect. You don't want to address that, apparently so you do the red herring tango with the comment:
"So do lots of blogs, and you're asking people to boycott them.".
Are you actually attempting to equate my blog with it's five or six regular visitors to the NRA's fucking website? That is the official face of the pro-gunrightz movement in the U.S. According to this:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Faq/?s=27
they currently have over 4.25M members. That's only about, lemme see, um, 700,000 times as many people as come here on a regular basis. Yeah, my blog is JUST like the NRA's high profile and professionally operated website.
All correct, and yes my previous statement was inaccurate.
Still the long-the-short of it is The Brady Campaign upset that nobody returns their phone calls on state or federal legal issues, decided to attempt to pressure private businesses to enact anti-gun policies.
Starbucks, having never really taken a side in the issue, declined to further take a side.
So your statement of: "there's apparently a push on by the NRA and it's sturmabteilung to make sure that Starbucks welcomes gun toting latte drinkers into its shops." Is also inaccurate.
That's my only issue.
Weer'd Beard:
You and mikey (although I must admit mikey is miles past you in this regard) are dismissive of the Brady Campaign. You equate them with confisaction--although you both know full well that the likelihood of such an event is vanishinly small. You paint Obama as a Marxist, bent on destroying the "Real" America--something which Bush and his cronies did a fair job of in their eight years--and consider those who disagree with you to be limpwristed pantywaists who are "afraid" of guns.
You and mikey lump everyone who disagrees with your enthusiasm for firearms into one homogenous group--it's a mistake that a lot of other people make about those with whom they disagree.
When someone tells me that they need a gun to defend their home I think they're either living in a dangerous place or that they've been scared, badly, by someone. When someone tells me that they need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine to defend their home, I view them as paranoid or stupid. When similar arguments are advanced for justifying the ownership of something like a Barret rifle I think that the person is delusional. However, when someone tells me that they want to own guns and use them for things like hunting--other than humans--and match shooting I never have and never will have a problem with them.
Similarly, if someone has a GOOD reason to be carrying a handgun into a coffee shop, no problem. Saying the good reason is "to defend and preserve my 2nd Amendment rights" is a horseshit argument that is blatantly false. You can disagree with that as much as you care to, I will never be convinced of the validity of such an argument.
To say that we are talking past each other is an understatement. As I have pointed out in the past I have no desire to come to your blogs and engage in more of this stupidity. I know that you guys enjoy what you do, trying to rub the noses of the people you disagree with in the shit. It's a waste of time--you are not convincing anyone that is against your convictions that you are right.
I've let the last couple of comments you've posted here stay up. They will the last--if the subject of them is guns. I understand your zeal, ande you're entitled to think any way that pleases you. I'm also entitled not to waste my time re-playing the same game over and over again unless I choose to do so on someone else's blog.
That's it for this.
Demo,
In your mind, what constitutes a "good reason" to carry a firearm into Starbucks?
Would it be that a person has a considerable sum of cash they carry for business reasons?
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm
Would it be that a young (or not so young) female is concerned about being raped?
In 2008, the estimated number of forcible rapes (89,000)—the lowest figure in the last 20 years—decreased 1.6 percent from the 2007 estimate
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
Would it be that someone is concerned about being caught in a robbery at Starbucks?
http://www.google.com/search?q=robbery+at+starbucks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
So, please help me out and define in your opinion what constitutes a good reason.
Bob S.:
I would consider a good reason for carrying a visible, loaded weapon into a Starbuck's (or any other restaurant, tavern, department store, etc.,.) is that the weapon is required in the performance of one's job. That's it. I know that it's legal to do so for all sorts of other reasons, depending on one's state of residency, being legal is not a "good reason", it's a fact of law.
I'm not sure what you're point is with the various links. I looked at them and they don't really tell me that having a gun handy is the decisive factor in whether people are robbed or raped--at a Starbucks, at a Starbucks or anywhere else.
Very interesting change of subject, Demo.
Is this the direction you want to take this post?
I ask only because I'm not a fan of typing serious responses only to have them erased.
Well got to thinking and I have blog posts that cover most of this.
It's a lot of reading, but it's also a very serious and important issue. Also Demo makes some very valid points that should make a lot of sense to people who are not familiar with firearms, firearms laws, or personal defense.
So here's a comprehensive rebuttal that just gives a baseline on most of the issues:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/584743.html
Here's a bit on what I call the "Numbers Game" which appears to be a common silliness played my legislator, and Demo seems to think a "30 Round Magazine" makes a difference too:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/412572.html
and I did a 3 part serious on "Military Style Weapons" which is the current Brady Buzz word for the so-called "Assault Weapons" (you gotta change the name when you loose the battle!)
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/472758.html
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/473317.html
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/475124.html
So that should be a decent starting point.
It's a lot of reading, but then again it took a lot of reading to get me to realize what a fool I'd been for supporting gun control for a huge part of my life. One or two valid points are rarely enough to convince somebody they're 180 degrees wrong.
But given that our views are diametrically opposed...but we both claim the same end-goal. Less violence, and less crime. Both of us can't be right.
BTW all who read this, feel free to comment on my blog, I welcome all. If you don't have an account, comment anonymously and leave some sort of signature so we don't get confused.
Weer'd Beard:
That sort of comment will stay up, as will Tom S. comment. Having said that, I will not be doing any heavy reading for now, as I'm in the middle of a lot of "gottas" at the moment.
Believe it or not, we can be diametrically opposed on means, in agreement on ends and yet we both CAN be wrong. The devils are in the details.
It may be a week or more before I get a chance to wade through this stuff. Look for a note, here, or a new post around then.
Heh, you are 100% correct with the statement that we can both be wrong.
I'll be dead honest, it's one reason why I seek out blogs like this, and push the issues.
I was wrong once, I know I'll be wrong again. But I'll never know unless I'm constantly putting my core beliefs to the test.
Also I respect your statement that you can't immediately get to the posts I put up. Took me a damn long while to write those, I don't expect anybody to read them during a coffee break or such.
I'll be staying tuned.
So DemoCommie,
Since you don't support people's rights to be visibly gay/black/religious -- I mean armed, do you support concealed carry laws?
Since Open Carry is a fact of law in many states, do you support people in the exercise of their rights?
The point of the examples were to show that bad things happen. It is not particularly surprising that bad things tend to happen less to those who are armed and ready to deal with problems.
mikey:
What part of me telling you that your comments about gunz and such will just get deleted do no get. You're a fucking idiot with a serious problem in understanding plain english.
BTW, I did want to respond to this:
"If a person who chooses an AR-15 for home defense is paranoid and stupid, then so is the guy whose home defense gun is a Remington 870loaded with 00 Buck"
You made a similar comment months ago in reference to me saying that I would have a problem with some fuckhead neighbor with an AR-15 equipped with a 30 round magazine shooting at intruders while I'm living nearby. The "00 Buck" comment was not, IIRC, made by anyone but you.
Back in the early 70's a guy I knew told me that a good piece for home defense was a .410, sawed off, and loaded with birdshot. He was an Olympic shooter and I respected his opinion.
So, yeah, 00 Buck, prolly a REALLY bad idea--course, since you're the one who brought it up it's no surprise.
You just keep on putting comments here until you've worn your fingers down to the wrist--I'll just keep deleting them as soon as I see them. Really, I mean, are you one of those people who just keeps hitting on a girl at the bar--even after her husband tells you to get the fuck away from her?
Bob S.:
I'm not anti-gay, anti-black or anti-religious person (I am, for damn sure, anti-religious--being an atheist and all). The first two qualities are considered (by most thinking people) to be immutable; the latter, not so much.
Your original question did not address the "right". You wanted to know what I would consider a good reason for someone to carry a loaded and visible weapon into Starbucks. The legality of such behavior is not in question. It is legal to pick your nose in public. It is legal to do a lot of things in public, but that doesn't mean I want to do them or watch others do them.
You say:
"The point of the examples were to show that bad things happen. It is not particularly surprising that bad things tend to happen less to those who are armed and ready to deal with problems."
That conclusiom is, in no way, supported by those links. If you think I'm wrong, you're gonna need to show me the math.
Before you spend a lot of time on that...
There are many, many people walking around with penises and vaginas; there are also many, many people walking around with a lot of money or no money. When people use the statistics that show a reduction in overall crime (particularly violent crime) and say that it is due to the society becoming, increasingly, armed--but offer no substantive peer reviewed studies that reach the same conclusions--it it not a compelling argument.
How about Free Speech?
Freedom to assemble?
Maybe those are bad ideas for people to do at Starbucks also, eh?
Bigotry is bigotry whether it is based on immutable characteristics or not.
So, Why isn't a good idea to exercise basic Constitutionally protected, specifically enumerated rights lest those very rights atrophy over time?
Just because you don't think it isn't a good idea doesn't mean it is so.
Shouldn't those that discourage an exercise of our rights have to provide statistical evidence supporting their reason?
Shouldn't those who seek to petition companies, like the Brady Campaign, show there is an overwhelming necessity in limiting that exercise of rights?
Where is the proof that the lawful exercise of a right is a problem?
The German citizens gave away their rights
I agree with you here, the citizens gave away their rights...why support those that want Americans to emulate those German citizens of yesteryear?
mikey:
"And yet police agencies don't issue birdshot as the duty loads for their shotguns....
Oh right, they use buckshot, because birdshot is for birds and small game.
Of course this is coming from the same guy who thinks .223 / 5.56 TAP rounds are a terrible idea too. And of course those loads are also the same ones police use in their AR-15's."
None of which has anything at all to do with you using the comparison in the first place, dumbfuck. YOU put that red herring out there and then acted as is someone else had done so. You're dishonest and, fortunately, not very clever about it.
Bob S.:
Tell ya what; you work on the last questions I asked and then I'll work on the ones you just asked.
Weer'd Beard:
The garlicum comments didn't offend me, I just decided to not have a whole other set of arguments going on here. The spammer if that's what he was can try that on his own blog.
Hey Demo,
What questions did you ask???
Be happy to work on something if you've asked a question some place.
Care to point out the questions you've asked me?
TAP 5.56 is a very good home defense load. Tho personally as a one-size fits all, a pistol carbine that takes detachable magazines offers the most ease of use, the least amount of recoil, and still very good stopping power, without too much over-penetration.
Bob S:
Question was:
"That conclusiom is, in no way, supported by those links. If you think I'm wrong, you're gonna need to show me the math."
If you don't see that as a question, I'm telling you it's a question.
mikey:
Buh-bye:
From John Lott
Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we
find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without
increasing accidental deaths. If those states without right-to-carry concealed gun
provisions had adopted them in 1992, county- and state-level data indicate that approximately
1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly. Similarly, we predict
that rapes would have declined by over 4,000, robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated
assaults by over 60,000. We also find criminals substituting into property
crimes involving stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and
the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates consistently reduce
crime. The estimated annual gain from all remaining states adopting these laws was
at least $5.74 billion in 1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed
handgun permit is as high as $5,000.
http://www.kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf
Conclusion: Passage of concealed carry legislation in Utah does not fit the trends in crime rates experienced by other states that have passed similar laws. Previous research indicates that crimes against individuals decrease while crimes against property involving stealth increase after passage of conceal carry laws. In Utah:
1. Murder rates decreased overall after 1995. However, there was a marked increase in the murder rates committed by males in the 10-24 age group, probably due to gang violence.
2. Assault rates decreased at an accelerated rate.
3. Rape rates do not appear to be affected by the law.
4. Robbery rates decreased at a greater rate.
5. Crimes against property involving stealth (burglary, larceny, auto theft) did not increase as predicted and do not seem to be affected by the law.
6. The unintentional firearm injury rates decreased despite a 17-fold increase in permit holders, which indicates that responsible individuals carry guns.
http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm
Conversely from the CDC
During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
Bob S.:
Re: John Lott, see:
http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/
Re: the CDC's report:
"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."
Pretty much what I said in my earlier comment.
John Lott was one of the studies I cited. There were many more, I cited another.
You asked for evidence and it was provided.
Study after study shows the same results -- either a decrease in crime or no effect on crime rates, accident rates or deaths.
So, if it could decrease crime, doesn't increase it -- why not support the exercise of a right?
Surely, you don't have a problem with Liberals getting together at Starbucks (Right to peacefully assemble) do you?
That is a non-immutable characteristic, eh
Or do you discourage that because it might make some people feel icky or something.
How about religious people discussing their faith at a coffee house, should that be discouraged because someone might be offended?
How about driving a car? More people get killed by automobiles then firearms....maybe we should discourage people from driving to Starbucks - petition them to close their drive through lanes.
Fact is Democommie, if we don't want to go the way of Nazi Germany we need to support all of our rights. Not just the ones you like. All of them -- including the right to keep and bear arms - either openly or concealed.
Richard:
It is with great reluctance that I must say that your comment WILL be deleted in it's entirety (it is quoted here in it's entirety:
Where did all these dickheads come from? Jesus, what a bunch of wankers. Anyway, could you please delete this comment? I think it would give me "street cred" if you did. People would think I must have posted something pretty bad ass to have it deleted by you. They'd think me "edgy", etc. Gotta help the image, no? Besides, I've never been deleted or had the banhammer dropped on me. I did have an ex-girlfriend de-friend me on My Space but if you ask me, SHE was the one who was immature.)
so that people might know why it was deleted. Then again, they might not.
Bob. S.:
The Lott "study" is not a study, it's a surmise that had a conclusion which he then attempted to support by putting numbers together with no real context or supporting facts.
The
http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm
diud not take me to a particular page, but when I googled it I found this page:
http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/post.asp?method=ReplyQuote&REPLY_ID=224290&TOPIC_ID=20785&FORUM_ID=19
with it's charming photo montage of Mr. Obama with the camo'd handgun juxtaposed to it.
Um, I'm thinking that the "study" is pretty much the same as Lott's.
The CDC study is, oddly enough, a study. Statistics are compiled and conclusions drawn, where there is enough information to work with. When they can't draw a definitive conclusion--either because of a lack of data or a lack of pertinent questions being asked, they say so.
I gotta go to a meeting. Please read any of mikey's drivel before I return as I have to get out the doggyglove and pick up after he's been here.
Richard:
A dick by any other name is, in fact, still a dick. "Badass", it was; still, it needed a bit more invective to rise to the level of "Badass MoFo". Please feel free to come here and practice until you feel ready to engage the cruel world of fullcontact blogging.
Thanks, man. Here's the problem in a nutshell. Having survived a heart procedure as I did I now love everything about everybody. All the time. I am, in other words, out of sorts. I need to work on that and I thank you for giving me the chance to find my mojo again because I know deep down inside that I stone cold hate some of these mother. fuckers. Like, a lot. But I have to find a way to express myself, ya know?
Richard:
Glad to hear you're on the mend, but just because your heart is now working properly doesn't mean you gotta be a bleedin' heart. I know that deep down inside that wonderful, just glad to be alive guy that you've become there still lies a mean spirited curmudgeon.
Go for the gusto!
"Study after study shows the same results -- either a decrease in crime or no effect on crime rates, accident rates or deaths."
Show me the ones that are showing declines and are NOT "studies" with no scientific methodology, or utilize flawed methodologies or that have not been peer reviewed.
Your other examples are strawmen/false equivalencies.
Thanks for bringing up automobiles. The numbers for murders v motor vehicle deaths ARE comparable. The numbers for use/duration of use of vehicles v guns are not comparable.
Democommie,
Depends on the method of comparison between cars and firearms.
Want to look at it from a miles driven to rounds fired perspective and see if it doesn't look different?
How about from a total numbers view point...care to guess which one America has more of - guns or cars?
In the end, the only valid comparison is something simpler then either of those -- which one is a specifically enumerated Constitutionally protected right?
Bob S:
Care to compare miles driven to rounds fired? Sure. I only have a number for total vehicle miles driven in 2007 as the latest I could find. It was about 3.03 Trillion*. That works out to roughly 10,000 per person/average. I'll see if I can get any info about how many rounds of ammunition were fired in this country in the same period. I'm guessing it will be less.
Another consideration is that driving is done in very dicey conditions, as a matter of course, for all sorts of different reasons. Driving is also done on many different roads under all sorts of varying conditions. That driving kills so FEW people (in comparison to earlier times) is the result of stringent safety standards, strict licensing procedures and the efforts of a considerable fraction of the money that both the states and the feds spend on those standards and enforcement of the various laws that apply to driving.
* Source: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_32.html
I'll be interested to see how he backpedals when he realizes just how nasty his analogy makes cars look compared to guns, when the real numbers are applied...
I'm all for seeing those "real numbers".
Wow -- it seems like you've attracted some obsessive-compulsive guncommenters, Demo. I detect a bit of "driven-ness" to keep hashing it out, hashing it out on the topic that tics over in their minds. When I used to be a psych nurse, I had several OCD patients, and I know how hard it can be to shake those things that MUST be repeated...
Also, I've decided to go a la the Rev. Paperboy and adopt a beavery look in honour of my new location. The mutant kangaroo just wasn't appropriate for up here.
Bukko Canukko:
I'm likin' it!
"Even looking at raw numbers should make it obvious that there's not a problem.
~80 million gun owners"
"Demo - What is it with you deleting comments and then quoting part of said comments to respond to?"
It's called "cherry picking", mikey; it's something you and your gunnutz friends excel at doing.
80M gun owners (no source citation from mikey) v something north of 205M licensed drivers in the U.S.*; Vehicle miles traveled a bit let less than 3.05 trillion**
Maths not my strong suit but asssuming that the DOT's numbers are accurate and assuming that the average person drives at an average speed of, say, 45 miles per hour (it's probably less, but I can't really say that), the numbers look a bit like this.
3.05T (total vehicle miles)/205M (total licensed drivers) = 14,875 miles per licensed driver in 2007. Using the figure of 45mph we obtain a figure of 330 hours of driving, per licensed driver or about 6.35 hours per week. That works out to about one hour per day--yeah, the math is a bit fuzzy, but it can always be tightened up.
So, I think what you and some of your pals are saying is that guns are safer than cars, statistically. Assuming, once again, that your number of 80M is an accurate figure for gun owners, that would mean that each gun owner, on average, plays with his toys about 2.56 x 6.35 hours per week or 16.25 hours. That would give us an average of 2 hours, 22 minute+/- per day. While I have no doubt that YOU spend more time than that with your guns, I doubt that the average gun owner is quite that dedicated.
BTW, mikey, you say you only have a problem with getting your drivel deleted on "anti-gun" sites. I can't speak for other folks, but I think it's safe to say that you've been told, numerous times that your comments will be deleted. Since you insist on leaving them here, what do you really expect? I mean, Jeez, it's not as if I've lied to you to draw you in. I think you're an idiot--I don't get anything of value from interacting with you. Please, by all means, do what you like. I will continue to delete any of your comments that I don't like, your pissing and moaning about it notwithstanding.
* Source:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/dlchrt.cfm
** Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vmt421.cfm
"Using the figure of 45mph we obtain a figure of 330 hours of driving, per licensed driver or about 6.35 hours per week. That works out to about one hour per day--yeah, the math is a bit fuzzy, but it can always be tightened up."
See, I said I'm weak on math. I used the wrong divisor for the hours of driving per week. It should have been 330/45 = 7.33 hours per week, adjust the other figures accordingly.
BTW, mikey, you say you only have a problem with getting your drivel deleted on "anti-gun" sites.
It's because as a whole you and your ilk are incapable of having an intellectual conversation. You have to cherry pick & delete dissent.
It's simple really. Your entire ideology crumbles when challenged with reason, logic & facts, so you have no choice but to use "editorial control" to keep that from happening on your own blog.
Wrong, fuckwad.
You say me and my ilk (us folks that don't LOVE guns are not nearly so monomaniacal as gunnutz) can't have a logical argument. Aside from the fact that you're not bothering to refute my last comment or numerous others that have numbers you may dispute you have ignored my suggestion, repeated on several occassions that you go to the Brady Campaigns blog and argue with them--they are somewhat single issue fixation types like yourself.
No, mikey, the reason your shit gets deleted is because you're an asswipe and a crybaby who hasn't had an original thought since you started coming here. I disagree with a lot of folks on a lot of issues, but I respect their arguments and the logic that they employ. I have no respect for you or your assertions. I'm beginning to think that you are either masochistic or suffering from low self-esteem; be that as it may, it's not my job to help you work through whatever the hell it is you seem to be working through. Professional mental healthcare is what you're looking for son; it's not available here.
Oh, btw, mikey:
This:
""I will never be convinced of the validity of such an argument."
The nice thing about that comment Demo, is that it gives credence to why I refer to you as a bigot. That statement exemplifies the very definition of the word bigot."
descibes, precisely, the way you and a lot of other gunnutz view those of us who don't think that the gun is some sort of multi-tool that will solve all of life's problem.
"you may dispute you have ignored my suggestion, repeated on several occassions that you go to the Brady Campaigns blog and argue with them--they are somewhat single issue fixation types like yourself."
they deleted and locked the comments section on their blog over a year ago.
Too bad, the comments section was a great place to dig up the references for just about all the peer-reviewed gun studies.
ALL THE SAME.
CHEAT TO WIN
and we're winning.
Weer'd Beard:
It was so nice that you said it twice.
Was this:
"ALL THE SAME.
CHEAT TO WIN
and we're winning."
A Freudian slip?
I just sent them an e-mail, I'll let you know what they have to say.
I also looked for the NRA's blog on their website, it seems to be a "concealed carry" thing.
Yeah NRA doesn't have a "blog" so to speak, they do print The American Rifleman online, and maybe some of their other print magazines, and they run a news site for events and legislation and gun-related news.
They don't blog, but then again they don't have to, as there are so many armatures willing to do it for Free.
MikeW, BobS, and myself all are small potatoes in that world, but Uncle, Tam, and Sebastian are some of the biggest names in the gun blogosphere:
http://www.saysuncle.com/
http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/
Oh and John Lott has his own blog:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
(of course he blogs just as often on economic issues as he does guns)
All of them have open comments sections.
There are ZERO blogs that spend any applicable amount of time on supporting gun control laws that have a comment section that welcomes people challenging their views. They either have no comments or will delete comments for political reasons .
One exception might be the huffington post, but the Anti-gun posts there are almost always copies of blog posts or press releases by paid lobbyists.
Also sorry for the double post, and the unclear statement. I was simply running off somthing my Mom always told me: "Cheat Cheat never beat"
But the anti-gun types feel the only way they can play is if they cheat to win.
And that's a pretty bad tactic given that they're getting crushed in the polls, and crushed in the laws.
"There are ZERO blogs that spend any applicable amount of time on supporting gun control laws that have a comment section that welcomes people challenging their views. They either have no comments or will delete comments for political reasons ."
Excepting Mikeb30200's blog, of course.
One of the major reasons for this sort of thing is that people who are not pro-gun rights may not have a strong opinion and avoid confrontation. There are many millions of people with all sorts of likes and dislikes that simply don't blog about them. That includes me.
I'm sure you're right that there are many more blogs that are the playground of the Type 2A's than those who are "anti gun"--depending on how you define anti-gun. I am called anti-gun, despite having said, numerous times that my objection is not to guns, or people with guns. My objection is to asshole idiots with guns and to people who may not be asshole idiots but will support them out of some misplaced sense of solidarity.
When you lump us all together and make assertions such as:
"But the anti-gun types feel the only way they can play is if they cheat to win."
you first of all say that all people that are anti-gun are liars and cheats and secondly you include me in that group. While I don't particularly care what most people think of me as a person I don't think that people who call me names and accuse me of being a liar, a coward and a dupe are really totally interested in any sort of debate.
Also, while you and others say that the entire intent of the Brady Campaign is total gun confiscation you have never seen them get any serious traction with that argument. You say that they are simps and liars and couldn't organize a free lunch while, at the same time, complaining about how they are encroaching on your lifestyle with the intent of disarming America. It really can't be both, and you're not dumb enough to think that your firearms are going to be the target of confiscation raids by the feds.
I hear, frequently, that there is no chance of any ardent gun rights supporters retreating one inch, the whole, "...cold, dead fingers" speech. I, and a lot of other folks with whom I DON'T agree on much that involves the regulation of firearms really find the protestations and simultaneous threats by gunnutz to be silly at best and frightening at worst.
I gotta go to a benefit for Haiti and another concert sandwiched into the middle of the evening. Seven bands in all, sometimes there is such a thing as TOO much fun.
MikeB deletes comments to sway the argument in his favor.
So no, It's all of them, including you.
As for the rest of your comments about anti-gun bloggers, and the Brady End-Game, why don't you get around to reading the blog posts of mine that I liked and then we can get down to discussing the issues on a civil level.
But I will say that the Brady campaign is a group that simply attacks any gun-related issue on the side of destroying any and all gun rights. Sometimes they hedge their views to appear moderate, and this means they often contradict themselves (Such as in this current Starbucks flap they make statements to be in favor of concealed carry....tho when Conceal carry laws are on the table they have made statements that they prefer open carry over concealed)
In the end I see ZERO difference on how groups like Brady, VPC, and the other Joyce Funded groups from the actions of the groups in the UK who more-or-less banned all private ownership of firearms, and are now well on their way to banning knives.
As far as my willingness to debate. I've been fully available both here, at my blog, and on several other blogs, I'm still waiting for an honest debate to come.
And I look forward to one...tho, I won't lie, and say I have my doubts, and strongly suspect that no attempt to actually logically defend a given policy or law will be presented.
Weer'd Beard:
Hopefully I will have some time to read those links this week. It has been pretty insane bizzy for the last two weeks.
I am fairly certain we will not reach any substantive agreements--something that really doesn't trouble me--on the subject of gun ownership and use.
I will take your comment about Mikeb up with him and see what he has to say. I don't delete comments that I disagree with, I delete comments from people who are shitheads and mike w. is one of those.
If John Lott is a source it isn't going to be easy to argue with his "facts". He is to academic rigour what Judge Roy Bean was to probitive jurisprudence.
Did the post I wrote this morning get eaten by the internet gnomes?
If so, the crux of my comment was that:
#1. I only cite Dr. Lott when his work is the forefront on a subject (Mostly the media bias on guns, and the frequency of shootings where guns are banned.) for things like "More guns Less Crime" his books are good reads, but there are more dry and more concrete places to grab better data, like the CDC and the FBI, as well as conglomerations of local studies.
#2. I don't expect my essays will change your mind, tho I wouldn't rule it out completely. What I do hope is it will get you up to speed on the ins-and-outs of the flaws of our gun control laws, and the foolishness of them overall. This also I think very well shows that the Brady's end-game is not "Sensible Gun Laws", but complete gun bans and confiscations, simply pushed by an incremental slippery slope.
#3. If you only delete comments because the post is done by "an asshole", why did you delete my first comment on this thread which was both on-topic, and politely phrased?
Hopefully once you're up to speed on the basis of my arguments we can have an even and reasoned debate.
Tho from your and other's who behave very similarly to you, behavior, I have strong doubts that you will make any effort to do just that.
Tho I am taking the time to give you references and responses means that I haven't completely ruled that out, so no offense meant.
I did get an answer from Mikeb about deleting comments and he related a story about being accused of being a child pornograper, a liar about being in the U.S. military and a few other things.
I have to admit that I have only his word against other folks' word on this. Considering that his blog's comments section is loaded with comments that certainly do not support him I'm gonna have to say that I have no idea how he's "deleting comments to skew the argument in his favor."
John Lott is a lying sack of shit, he's published at least one "study" on guns and violence for which he is unable to find any data to back up his assertions. Rather than withdraw the study he simply complains that people are attacking him because they hate him. He has zero credibility with me, so citing anything he "studies" will be considered as hearsay.
mikey:
The only pipedream that I'm aware of is the one where you think anybody who comes here, with the exception of Weer'd Beard actually thinks your comments are worth reading. Keep on commenting, keep on watching them disappear.
MikeB302000 is an open and documented liar. and I'll leave it at that.
As for Dr. Lott, no need to repeat yourself, I don't cite him. The works of his I have read all cite data and reference peer reviewed studies, so I personally am unaware of the missing data set for which you speak of. Certainly I'll follow a link to see which of his many studies are under attack.
Certainly no need to repeat yourself. You don't like him, I get it.
He certainly has his flaws, and many anti-gunners have personal issues with him, so on grounds of fabricating a persuasive argument, I do not cite him, and you will not find citations for Dr. Lott in any of the linked posts I gave you, and I can't remember the last time I cited Dr. Lott. It was about 4 years ago when I read the last book by him "The Bias Against Guns" It was good for the first half and then got really dull. I still haven't read by copy of "More Guns Less Crime", and I likely never will, as the data is quite old by now, and it does not cover a post-heller United states which is a much more cut-and-dry scenario.
But let's not continue wasting our times. Read the posts, and figure out what the best medium and topics for a solid debate.
Democommie,
Since I was the one who started the meme at MikeB302000's place, I feel I should answer it.
See his post for confirmation, but Mikeb3020000 routinely and consistently applied the following logic to gun owners
1. Gun owners had the tools (firearms) to break the laws.
2. Many criminals who broke the law had firearms.
3. There fore all gun owners should be treated like criminals who just hadn't broken the law yet - restriction of rights, privacy being vacated etc.
So, I applied the same logic to him.
1. Bloggers have the tools to break the child pron laws (computers and cameras).
2. Many heinous criminals use computers and cameras to break the laws.
3. There fore some bloggers should be treated like people breaking child pron law and have their rights restricted and their privacy removed.
I may have also insinuated (much like MikeB302000 does) that there are reasons for all behaviors. Many criminals leave the country to avoid prosecution/responsibility for criminal acts -- and doesn't MikeB302000 claim to live in Italy?
Coincidence or not?
Now, MikeB302000 really didn't like his same logic being applied to him and that is where the fun began. This was after nearly 18 months of him accusing gun owner of being complicit in heinous crimes.
Fair is fair isn't it?
Please note that even MikeB302000 didn't say we accused him of crimes
and when the inference is made that I'm involved in child pornography, I say it's gone too far.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-commenting-policy.html
Here is an example of my statements
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/03/youth-crime-gun-interdiction-initiative.html
From MikeB302000's post
This is why I blame gun owners: for opposing programs like the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative (YCGII), for blocking every effort at closing the so-called gun show loophole, for claiming to have Divine permission and calling it the 2nd Amendment, for turning a blind eye on gun dealers like Borgelt, for insisting that more guns is the solution and not the problem, for continuing to say gun availability has nothing to do with it, and most of all, for questioning my sincerity when I say these things and for relegating me to the ranks of the ignorant or the mendacious.
All comments are welcome.
Please note that all comments are welcome -- his words
Here is a section of mine
And this is why I blame ex-pats living in Italy for all the child porn. You choose to turn a blind eye to the problem, you continue to buy equipment that makes it possible for child porn to be produced. You resist calls to eliminate your right to free speech...that means no body can effectively act against child porn.
You just slandered every law abiding gun owner, but won't take the same responsibility for child porn Mike.
Now MikeB302000 is known for throwing gun owners under the bus -- but did I do anything he didn't do?
Hence why I don't bother citing or Defending Lott. I personally like the guy, but hey, if Demo wants to think he's an asshole and a liar, that's 100% fine, I've got plenty of other sources to cite, that say the same damn thing.
If the data wasn't so damn consistent on our side, I would have never switched teams in the first place!
Oh and FYI, MikeB302000 likes to throw lawful gun owners under the bus, but openly admits to owning guns illegally.
He also deletes any comment that points to the fact that he's living proof of the foolishness of gun control laws, or asks him for information on how he acquired his guns, and how he disposed of them if he did dispose of them.
I will add, that while MikeB302000 openly admits to committing state and local felonies, makes insinuations that there are more sinister crimes linked to his criminal gun ownership. That would deeply concern me...except that MikeB302000's posts and persona are inconsistent enough, and he catches himself in so many outright lies, I have my doubts anything he says is true, and likely he has never held or fired a gun in his life.
But it's a very strange behavior to be speaking as a gun-toting criminal advocating gun laws.
Then again criminals in prison have been interviewed to say that they can take steps to avoid the police, but it's impossible to avoid armed victims, and those truly scare them.
Democommie,
you are really working hard to win Troll of the Day Awards from me
False equivalencies seems to be a specialty of the rightwing. You accuse someone of being responsible for child pornography for merely owning a computer? Well, then you would be guilty of the same thing.
The false equivalency came from MikeB302000, not me. I simply applied his (faulty) logic to a tool that HE owns.
Read his posts, he claims because gun owners have firearms that can be stolen, that because gun owners don't support the same gun control laws he wants-- that we are guilty of "shared responsibility" in all firearm related crime.
Using the child pron angle was only to point out how ridiculous it is.
Note that I NEVER ACCUSED MikeB302000 of child pron...just expats living in Italy.
As the saying goes -- if the shoe fits. Read his post about his Bullsh*t 10%....again his logic not mine.
You want no laws and really, until after the fact of some horrific crime committed with a firearm, no responsibility for anyone to have and use whatever sort of arsenal they can amass.
Now, I limit my use of these terms very carefully. So consider that when I tell you this:
You are flat out lying. Show me any place where I have said I want no law -- prove it or admit you are lying.
Do you want responsibility for the child pron or other computer crimes that some people do?
I take responsibility for myself and my firearms. I don't take responsibility for the criminal actions of others, do you?
You want to talk reasonably but start that type of trash talking...makes it hard to believe that you are interested in reasonable discussion, doesn't it?
Now, who has the faulty logic?
MikeB302000 who says that every gun owner 'shares responsibility' for the criminal actions of others or I for applying his logic to computers and him?
Jesus Demo, how can we expect you to even passably debate when you can't even read (or understand) comments made.
Also you seem to be spending a lot of time responding to MikeW's posts...after you delete them, which strikes me as odd.
And yet you seem to avoid my simple question: "If you only delete comments because the post is done by "an asshole", why did you delete my first comment on this thread which was both on-topic, and politely phrased?"
I'm starting to think you're simply stalling, and have no honest interest in supporting what you stand for.
Bob S. and Weer'd Beard:
I understand your passion about guns, misplaced as I think it is. Here's the thing; neither of you has any desire for genuine debate.
What you want to do is to present your "facts" and simply have me say, "Oh, I see the errors of my thinking, comrades, I now understand that I could not have been right."
Calling mea liar is a tactic that will certainly end any discussion if you do it again. You don't have to say "I hate gun laws". Since the tone and content of virtually every comment I read over at Mikeb's or here disputes that there is any need for laws re: possession of firearms, regardless of intent for their use it's not hard to infer that you don't want gun laws. If you disagree with that characterization, while at the same time calling me and other people "anti-gun" because we are pro-gun laws, then the conversation is over. Another comment like that and I'll treat you exactly the same way as mikey is treated.
Weer'd Beard:
Castigating me for not moving fast enough to suit you is not going to get you any satisfaction. I have other interests and a lot of chores, of late, to complete. If you want to go down that road you can stop commenting here. It's entirely up to you.
"Here's the thing; neither of you has any desire for genuine debate."
100% pure projection, but whatever gets you through the night.
You know where to find me if in fact you do want to debate, and I'll probably check in from time-to-time, because I find your bizarre rational amusing, also I'm amused what clone-like similarity you anti-freedom types are.
You obviously have no desire to defend your stance or present support...and you appear to have some schoolyard mentality where you must say indeed it's us not willing to discuss the issues (tho the evidence lies before all of us).
Good for you, and by all means carry on, your side's avoidance of sensibility, and attraction to contradiction only does us good.
But if some day (and you'd best hurry up, as you're not getting any younger) if you want to find and put on your big boy pants, we can have a chat like grown men.
Before they are deleted, and likely mine. I will point out that MikeW. Presents some VERY valid points.
Actually did it, to an aluminum I-4 Dodge block. .30-06 and 7.62x54R will crack the heads, but won't penetrate the block. Maybe the WWII Black-tips would do a better job.
Slugs don't penetrait as well as you'd think. They make a MONSTER hole, but it appears they put on the breaks really quickly in Metal.
Buckshot penetrates about as well as most pistol loads, which makes sense when you look at the ballistic pattern.
We only used 5.56x45 Hard ball, but it certainly didn't have the energy of the slugs, nor the battle-rifle rounds.
I'd imagine the TAP would put on the breaks REALLY quick, and probably fragment.
Shot a Dodge Truck with an M2 .50, the engine block, drive shaft, transmission and axles all were able to stop .50 BMG Steel core rounds.
Auto Bodies don't stop much of anything.
Democommie
Calling mea liar is a tactic that will certainly end any discussion if you do it again
Why? Because it isn't true or because I hurt your feelings calling you out for your "mis-statements"?
Resisting additional restrictions on our rights is not the same as opposing all laws -- please show me where I've said let's get rid of all the laws.
Since the tone and content of virtually every comment I read over at Mikeb's or here disputes that there is any need for laws re: possession of firearms, regardless of intent for their use it's not hard to infer that you don't want gun laws.
Again, I question your inherent ability to tell a factual statement.
Please provide examples of where our statements have questioned the need for laws re the possession of firearms.
What do you call it when someone isn't telling the truth?
You can't tell the difference between my logic and MikeB302000's logic -- are you sure you aren't reading his comments and projecting his statements onto us?
I've seen that projection is a real problem with folks who want to restrict our rights.
Do you want to restrict our rights?
Can you show the need to infringe upon our rights any more then already exists?
That is the goal of gun control advocates -- the infringement and ever increasing infringement upon our rights. We have evidence to back up our statements if you want me to present it.
Now, you earlier accused me of faulty logic.
Will you publish a retraction of that statement?
Will you accuse MikeB302000 of faulty logic since he was the one who employed that "logic"?
Or will he ignore a valid stream of questions?
Anybody wanna take that bet with me?
Boys:
Put whatever you want in your comments, they're all going in the shitter after this note.
I recognize the tactics of a "Gish Gallop". I also recognize the strategy of attempting to wear someone down with repeatedly restating the same arguments in various ways.
mikey's whole TAP round v 00 Buckshot is a strawman of his own devising. This has been explained and ignored. That's fine. Each and every time I am told that I'm a liar, a cheat, a coward or an idiot by you folks it moves the chances of your ever convincing me or any people who think that guns are not the solution to every problem I have with other people further down the scale of probability.
That's it guys, you wanna continue to bray your superiority while at the same time whining about how you're misunderstood by people who want some sort of reasonable approach to regulating the types and numbers of weapons that can be purchased, sold, traded and used by virtually anyone who has the money to pay for them--well, you're barking up the wrong tree.
You can piss and moan, or you can simply stop wasting your time and mine here. I'll still be by MikeB's from time to time, but this conversation is over.
Aw, Gee. You all seem to agree on your characterization of me as suffering from NPD. I just didn't know that you fellers are also psychologists, in addition to being geniuses about everything else.
I'll have to take up the NPD diagnosis with the next qualified psychiatric counselor I see. Meantime I'll let the comments you leave on the blog speak for themselves--in the dustbin. For a group of folks that constantly complain about monolithic anti-gun stances and of your detractors using insults instead of arguing in good faith, you're all remarkable examplars of that sort of behavior.
Meantime, your arguments devolve into the childish sort of finger pointing that you claim others use against you. It is fascinating; much like watching a buzzard eat roadkill.
Bobby:
You, mikey and Weer'd keep saying things like this:
"You could have responded with intelligence, facts, figures, statistics, studies, reasoned opinions to the comments."
And yet, when I asked for you, Bobby, to provide data that wasn't based on a study by a biased individual, or an out and out liar (Mr. Lott) you have nothing to say? So much for wanting an honest debate.
What tickles me is that the three of you seem to think that anyone who reads this blog, other than yourselves, actually has the level of obsession re: gunz that the three of you do.
S'okay. You get to keep putting up your drivel, I get to keep sweeping it up and tossing it into the shitter.
Whoops! I almost forgot.
Insulting people and then saying, "Aw, we wuz jest havin' some fun with the pilgrim." is the general sort of defense that is put forth by bullies in the schoolyard when they are caught at it.
Hey, maybe one of you guys could put up a gravatar like the one Zorro used to use with Laci the Dog in the crosshairs, only using my photo instead. Maybe that would make you feel better.
This is beginning to look like a real case of gunnutz combining their primary sense of self-righteousness with a touch of OCD.
mikey, you think I've called you every name in the book? Not even close, fuckwad, not even close.
I didn't say you boys were bullying ME. I said your tactics were typical of a bully's. You keep talking about "big boy pants" and I'm going to start thinking your all fixated on mens' trousers as well as having your other problems.
mikey and weer'dy:
I'm not feeling the least bit angry at this point. Bemused is probably the closest thing to what I'm feeling. That would be "bemused" as defined in example 3 of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
"to cause to have feelings of wry or tolerant amusement..."
You try to hard to be as insulting as you possibly can without using "bad" words. So, it makes me wonder are you KKKristian Dominionists on top of being survivalists and 3%er Libertarians?
I'm not ranting at deleted comments. I'm replying to deleted comments. I think the rants are coming more from your end, fellers.
Never have I had this sort of hit count on a post. Keep it up, boys, you're driving up my stats!
mikey:
I have no idea what you people do for a living, because you always seem to be free to comment at the drop of a hat. I'm gonna guess that you're either on welfare or in the employ of the RNC. Whatever. My point is that with all the time you seem to have to waste, putting comments up here, there and everywhere you still haven't had time to show me all the examples of your being as staunch a supporter of Gay rights as you are of gun rights. But, hey, maybe you don't want folks at your blog to get the idea that you have some other obsession, besides gunz, I mean.
I was fairly certain, actually, when I got the reply to my comment about sending an e-mail to Mikeb re: his deleting of comments that this thing would not wind up with a bunch of us sitting around a manly campfire, polishing our Bushmasters and singing "Kumbaya".
You really are seriously mistaken to think that I'm pissed off. I would be pissed off if I had to tolerate your foolishness, here; I don't. I know that it probably irks you fellas, more than a bit, that you can't turn me away from the "darkside" of civil behavior and not being scared shitless that I'll be killed if I don't have a lot of guns in my house, in my vehicle and on my person. Sorry, I'm less worried about being robbed, raped or killed by some gun weilding criminal than I am being shot in some place like Starbucks by some fucking poseur who thinks that just because something is legal it's the same as being required.
Bobby:
Uh, no. You and your playmates have demonstrated the behavior that I thought would come out eventually. That's what I was really interested in seeing happen. It has happened. There's really not much else for you here. Please, feel free to keep commenting and then seeing "deleted" where your comment used to be.
Weer'd Beard:
I'm not "claiming" not to be angry, I'm not angry. I know when I'm angry--so does everyone around me--and I'm not angry.
You, mikey and bobby have proven to be the same sort of folks that I run into on a number of other blogs. You try, with your limited tools, to win people over to your side. When that fails you attack them and their beliefs. It seems not to penetrate your thick skulls that telling people that they're dupes, cowards and liars is not a way to win them over.
Keep it up. You're all spending a lot of time at your keyboards--time during which you could be out carrying your guns around or having planning sessions on how you're going to resist the jackbooted thugs of the ObamaBradist confiscation brigades.
The gunboyz say "We be havin' fun, you're the mad person, you're a liar, you don't got nuttin but lies."
Okay, fellers, nobody really reads my blog--although any post you get on drives my hit count through the roof. So all of your pouting and complaining never really gets picked up by many folks, except my other readers. Those other folks, you will have noticed, don't come by when the thread gets to a certain point. It's not because they're afraid of you. It's because your continued commenting is boring. I will admit there is a certain amount of schadenfreude going on here, but I'm not the one who is miserable.
You like to talk about me not being grown up, but all three of you are pretty much acting like little boys--angry little boys with big scary guns--at this point.
"You read your blog. That's the person I'm typing to!"
But, really, you're not. I know you think that's the case, but, really, it is JUST typing. It's not communication. I've been in enough relationships in this life to know when the talking is over. Apparently you haven't; either that, or you're masochists.
mikey:
When are you gonna man up and admit that you just flat out lied when you made your comment about supporting gay rights as much as you support gun rights. For a guy who says he wants the truth from everyone else you seem to have little use for it yourself.
Weer'dy:
If you crave attention as much as your comments would indicate I think you ought to consider EHarmony.
mikey:
I see you're still content to be a liar. It was a simple question, you can't give a simple answer? You didn't say, "I support gays a little bit." "You said I support gay rights as much as I support gun rights". That was your statement. Ever since then you've been dodging the issue.
You're a libertarian like I'm a millionaire. You support the horseshit that the GOP shovels into the party faithful.
Weer'dy:
You keep telling me how much fun you're having, but it seems to me like you're spending an awful lot of energy for nothing.
mikey:
Leave psychoanalysis to your shrink.
I'm spending about a minute and half here at the moment. It's my blog, I have to sweep up the dogshit that folks like you leave here.
With one subtle (to you, apparently) distinction: I've never wasted any of MY time on your blog or mikey's or Bobby's.
Say what you will, it looks a bit like stalking behavior or maybe just plain childish harassment. Not that it will change anything, except my hit count.
"Harassment? Yep, and you deserve it!"
So sayeth the Weer'd One. Well, thanks for at least admitting that your reason for your continued willingness to keep commenting--knowing that the comments are meaningless--is simply to be a putz. It's not oten that you boys let your agendas show through your "concerned citizens" costmume.
Ah, so now the pathology becomes evident.
Thanks for confirming it, boys.
You two must make your handlers at the GOP quite happy.
mikey, I'm still waiting on your admission that you were lying about the gay thing, but then I'm guessing that you won't be bothering to refute that.
How very considerate of him to do so.
Well, it's always gratifying to see the gunboyz lose their cools and stoop to the behavior and language that they complain about others engaging in.
mikey sez he's "taking the high road". Really? I think not, bonehead. Taking the high road would include not coming here, since you've been told you're wasting your time putting comments on this blog. But then you have demonstrated repeatedly that stupidity is one of your more admirable traits.
Howzabout some love for the gays that you support so much? Or are you too busy giving all of your love to your gunfriends?
He's certainly a slow learner!
I read both those posts. They weren't "pro-gay rights" by a long stretch. They were more like "fucking Obama fucked up again" posts.
I would think a "Pro-gay rights" post would include something that at least suggested "Gays should have the same rights as anyone else, and I'll fight anybody who says different."
How about "I support the rights of any consenting couple of adults to marry, and I don't think it wil threaten my relationship."??
How about not only "I have known gays in the service" but "I have been proud to serve with them, and I did not feel they were a threat to my manliness."???
How about "A person's choice of partner isn't the first thing I note about them."???
Or "What consenting adults do in the bedroom is none of my business, or the governments' business"???
My favorite sign at a recent gay rights rally said:
The gay agenda is:
1. Equal rights.
2. See #1
It was carried by my niece and her partner.
Mutzali: Shhhhh! You’re not s’posed to let ’em know about The Agenda™.
mikey's not a big enough boy to write his own pro-gay posts, you gotta do it for him?
As I remember it, you did not have anything to say about being a big supporter of gay rights, mikey sure did, though.
I will take Mutzali at her word. Good thing too, since you know I'm not going anywhere near your blog.
As for me, I have never said that I support gay rights as much as I do any other rights. I have spent a fair amount of time on various blogs arguing with single minded fuckheads who are as obsessed with the teh GAY as you and mikey are with teh GUNZ, but I have never claimed to be as ardent a supporter of gay rights as I am of anything else, so my bona fides in that regard are not in question.
mikey made a comment, some two months ago I think, that he has never bothered to back up. Now, you're doing it for him? Well, that's some solidarity, I guess, but it doesn't make any difference to me if you're willing to do his work, he still won't be getting any credit.
Mutzali, and Dave von Ebers:
Thanks for stopping by, sorry for the mess, but I clean up as best I can. Mutzali, thanks for going over there and reading those posts. I can't, I'm too scared of these guys; they terrorizeify me.
Weer'dy and mikey keep posting and and I keep deleting comments.
Weer'dy has decided, wrongly, that calling me a coward upsets me. It doesn't upset me, it irritates me.
However, he claims to be having fun, despite the fact that both he and the closeted gay supporter, mikey seem to be doing more self-righteous flailing than most would consider "fun".
Boyz:
I get it, really I do.
You keep coming over here, because you have to do a certain number of obnoxious posts on other people's blogs to qualify for your Lenstuhlkrieger 1st Class merit badges. Well, let me know if you need anything in the way of a note being signed to prove that you weren't hanging out at the drugstore instead of doing your assignments.
And yet again, the Weer'd one says I don't get it.
Meanwhile he's wasting his time putting up comments that only he, mikey and I will reada--if mikey sees them before I do.
mikey says I "conveniently ignored" bobby's "UCR FBI" data. He's full of shit of course. I told bobby after he posted the data that it did not support his argument.
mikey, I think it's time to trot out your "00 Buckshot" strawman, again. See if you can't also come up with the posts you wrote in support of gay rights while you're at it.
weer'dy said:
"I ask only because I'm not a fan of typing serious responses only to have them erased.
February 16, 2010 5:07 AM "
But he's obviously a fan of trolling and writing frivoulous posts.
Reverend Jerry Gloryhole:
I commisserate. I have lost many comments down the rabbit hole of the bloggermaw.
It is always a pleasure to hear from you. How is the music project coming?
Post a Comment