Board 8 > It is time for gun reform

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'll admit to not remembering the topic you mention, and thus why I don't remember the data you posted. I don't think I was a part of it because I typically don't stay in arguments for that long if I don't have a strong personal feeling for the side I'm arguing, but it's possible, and if I was, I apologize.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

and that data takes time to produce because it involves looking up figures from multiple different data sets, comparing them, and coming to your own conclusions. I wouldn't even be upset if people looked at the data and came to their own conclusions but what we're literally seeing is people REFUSING to acknowledge the data, and then 6 months later asking me to go and produce it again as if I'm just constantly looking at the same information and have it ready to post at all times... as if I'd even bother to do it in the first place if I knew it would have a 0% chance of penetrating the defensive shields that protect your brains from absorbing any information.

Nobody is refusing to acknowledge any data because you have yet to produce it. If this data exists and you have posted it before then you should have no problem pulling it up from the archive.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

When you say "you people" I hope you don't mean the board as a whole, otherwise I'd be confused as to why you still hang around.

there's a few people on here I do respect but I mostly just stick around to chat about random garbage. it's very rare that I engage topics like this anymore and even when I do it's not in the hopes of changing anyone's mind. couldn't really say why it is though. probably just out of some sadistic pleasure of admonishing people who represent what I perceive as a lack of intellectual integrity.

Dark Young Link posted...

Original topic?

I mean, I know the site but could you give me the name of the topic title so I don't just take several hours looking through every topic with the word "gun" in it(The load times are dreadful so I want to make sure I'm on the right page).

it was a long time ago, I don't remember the topic title. it was a foolmo topic. it's the one where he proposes his plan to destroy every gun in america.

lordloki12 posted...

Nobody is refusing to acknowledge any data because you have yet to produce it. If this data exists and you have posted it before then you should have no problem pulling it up from the archive.

actually you were one of the people who did refuse to acknowledge it in the original topic so at least you're consistently out of sync with reality! anyway, once again, why would I bother going through the effort of doing that when you guys will simply not absorb the information anyway.

I mean, hell, look at this exact exchange we have just had. I just said that I wasn't going to do something because it wasn't worth the effort. and somehow you respond with 'so why won't you do it then huh? huh???'

because it's not worth the effort.

the answer still hasn't changed!

StealThisSheen posted...

I'll admit to not remembering the topic you mention, and thus why I don't remember the data you posted. I don't think I was a part of it because I typically don't stay in arguments for that long if I don't have a strong personal feeling for the side I'm arguing, but it's possible, and if I was, I apologize.

I mean this is probably not what you want to hear but I don't care that much about apologies. kind of a double edged sword where if a person doesn't apologize to me it doesn't affect me all that much... but if a person does apologize it doesn't actually change my opinion or interpretation of the situation.

though like I mentioned I'm less sure that you were actually in that topic so it's not like my opinion is cemented on you in particular. I was more just stating 'here is an outline of things that happen on this board, and this is the reason why I don't bother putting in the effort that I would have in the past.'
---

Hey Maria. How's life been for you?
---

if you want to know specifically more what my issue with you is SEP, look no further than our previous exchange in this very topic. you posted an argument that was based upon a faulty and incomplete data set. I pointed out how the data set was incomplete in a way that could ONLY prove that you are right, and would never be able to show the results that proved you wrong.

you responded by telling me that I should go out and find the rest of the data for you in order to change your mind or something.

if I posted a conclusion that was based on faulty and incomplete data, and someone pointed it out, do you know how I would respond? I would throw out my conclusion. I would say, okay then, I guess we don't have enough information to say definitively what the result is.

it's really hard for me to respect someone who responds the way you did because it demonstrates a clear lack of concern for whether the data is accurate or not. you seem to only care about whether it proves you right or not.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Nobody is refusing to acknowledge any data because you have yet to produce it. If this data exists and you have posted it before then you should have no problem pulling it up from the archive.

actually you were one of the people who did refuse to acknowledge it in the original topic so at least you're consistently out of sync with reality! anyway, once again, why would I bother going through the effort of doing that when you guys will simply not absorb the information anyway.

I mean, hell, look at this exact exchange we have just had. I just said that I wasn't going to do something because it wasn't worth the effort. and somehow you respond with 'so why won't you do it then huh? huh???'

because it's not worth the effort.

the answer still hasn't changed!

Would love to see the receipts on that.
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Hey Maria. How's life been for you?

I would say my quality of life was steadily improving for a solid decade and then sort of... smoothed out into a plateau. honestly that took a bit of adjusting to because it kind of felt like I was getting less than I wanted, but it was more just because I had been so used to things always constantly getting better? also I'll admit this means I probably stagnated to some extent.

anyway lately I'd say things have been fairly boring for the last small stretch of time, but I am more or less just hanging out and biding my time until I move onto the next phase of my life.

right now I'm spinning the wheels, I guess.

probably explains why I've had more free time to post on board 8 and such!

lordloki12 posted...

Would love to see the receipts on that.

obviously not enough to go and look them up, though.

(seems more like what you love is making pithy remarks and then retreating from any meaningful discussion)
---

I presented the data I did because the subject at hand was about shootings once they have begun. My argument that you replied to was that it's incredibly difficult for a normal person to react in a safe and effective manner once a mass shooting (or attempted one) has already began, as evidenced by my use of "mass panic and people running around." Thus, the data was relevant to my argument. Any data about a shooter being stopped before they have begun shooting, or shooting in an area with less people in which there is no such mass panic, was unavailable in the data provided by the FBI and irrelevant to the point at hand. That's why I said if you wanted to ague with such data, you should provide it. It wasn't some attempt to argue with incomplete data or be misleading. I was responding to the specific scenario.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

lordloki12 posted...

Would love to see the receipts on that.

obviously not enough to go and look them up, though.

(seems more like what you love is making pithy remarks and then retreating from any meaningful discussion)

You haven't provided anything meaningful to discuss and when asked to do so you whine and complain. If you can provide any proof that you have posted this data before or that I have ignored this data in some other conversation that we have had please do. Otherwise we really have no other choice than to continue on knowing you have been full of it this entire time.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

it was a long time ago, I don't remember the topic title. it was a foolmo topic. it's the one where he proposes his plan to destroy every gun in america.

Alright.

Um... I searched up foolm0r0n's posts. I can't seem to find the topic in question. Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong archive. I'm not seeing in on the log. Could you help me out?
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I dunno but more people shooting during a mass panic when everybody is running around doesn't seem like a super great idea, either, unless they're John Rambo

StealThisSheen posted...

I can't imagine in the case where a shooter begins to shoot up a club or other crowded public spot that even a trained civilian is going to have time to assess the situation and stop them immediately before anybody is shot, much less one without training beyond what is required to own a gun.

Like, I felt I stayed pretty consistent to the point I had been arguing, which was that there aren't many examples of an untrained(beyond what is required) civilian stopping a gunman who has already engaged in shooting in a crowded space before death/injury has occurred. If I misunderstood your argument, or if you attempted to widen the range of discussion and I didn't catch on, I again apologize despite it not meaning anything. If you take it as me being dishonest, so be it.
---

No, it's not. Piss off, and take your regressive nonsense with you.

StealThisSheen posted...

Like, I felt I stayed pretty consistent to the point I had been arguing, which was that there aren't many examples of an untrained(beyond what is required) civilian stopping a gunman in a crowded space before death/injury has occurred. If I misunderstood your argument, or if you attempted to widen the range of discussion and I didn't catch on, I again apologize despite it not meaning anything. If you take it as me being dishonest, so be it.

I don't think you're being dishonest I just think you're not getting it.

My entire point is that the data you looked up would not show that information. "mass shooting" means there were multiple victims. Obviously looking up that data is not going to show the cases where the shooter was stopped before he killed multiple victims. This is just, I mean, honestly, this is just common sense. If I point this out to you, your response should be, 'oh yeah, I guess that data isn't relevant then.'

not 'do my homework for me.'
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Could you help me out?

sure here's my suggestion; ask GMUN. it's his database, not mine.
---

in the interest of not being too terse I will say I just tried to look it up and couldn't find it either. so I don't know if the archive only covers things from a specific time period, if specific topics were/could be removed from the archive, or what else might be possible. I already stated earlier I didn't know if the topic was archived or not, but that the information would be in that topic if it was still around. so that's the best I can tell you. others who posted in that topic might be able to remark on it if they remember it properly (foolmo, lopen, wang, possibly others). I remember rock was in there too but he was acting exceptionally stupid. I told him that I would go back and look up all of the various sites where I got the original numbers from if he would say that he'd admit I was right after seeing it, and he literally straight up said he would more or less never admit that I was right no matter what. so I basically concluded it wasn't worth it for me to go back and look up all the information I had already gone over the previous morning (or however long it had been). actually that might have been another gun control topic, who knows at this point.

anyway the general idea is that I looked at the population, gun ownership, and homicide rate in various areas to make a ratio, then compared these numbers. they were basically all over the place... showing no direct correlation. places with high gun ownership had high or low homicide rates relative to the gun/owner population, places with low also shower high or low. it was pretty obvious that reducing the amount of guns had no discernible effect and no one at any point produced any convincing argument for why they should be banned (at varying levels based on the person arguing) other than the fact that there is "no reason" to have them. yet it had clearly been shown that reducing the numbers didn't actually reduce the homicides. I'd trust one of the three mentioned above to remember this better than anyone else cited so far (foolmo, lopen, or wang). I might be conflating some of this with another gun control topic that happened around the same time so you could try looking for that one (I almost want to say it was something like 'there is absolutely no reason to own a...') meisnewbie also posted in one of these two topics at some point under masaomihouzuki.

point is we've all been here before, we've all done this shit before, and it's not even just the gun control debate but really any argument we as board 8 have had over the last decade. I see the same stuff happening over and over again and I've just become entirely too jaded about it to really put in that much effort.
---

Well, I still feel the other data is atleast mildly irrelevant to my point, since I mentioned the data mostly to highlight that half of the stop attempts failed.

I see your point, though prevention data I feel would be a bit less conclusive, since it leaves the shooter's motives up in the air a bit. Did they have a specific target? Did they intent to kill more before they were stopped? Etc.

I think the argument got a bit off point. My point was that data about armed civilians failing at their goal to stop an armed gunman during a shooting taking place in a crowded area with mass panic was readily available.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

Could you help me out?

sure here's my suggestion; ask GMUN. it's his database, not mine.

Alright. It just seems a bit odd how you're like "I remember talking to you and you didn't get it last time.", and then when I asked for clarification you're like "It's in the archive". And then when I asked for the topic name you're like "I don't remember the topic, but it was by this user". and then when I'm telling you I couldn't find the topic from the user in question, you're like "Ask GMUN I don't know".

You can perhaps see how this makes you confidence looks a bit shaky to some.
---

Also, with that mention of the data, I mentioned that simulations with gun owners had been run and data had been collected that way, as well, which was also a basis for my opinion, but that seems to have been lost in the shuffle.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I think the argument got a bit off point. My point was that data about armed civilians failing at their goal to stop an armed gunman during a shooting taking place in a crowded area with mass panic was readily available.

a data set of only 6 seems to indicate quite the opposite. we really don't have nearly enough data to determine what kind of correlation exists. I'm not definitively saying that you're wrong, but you're arguing from the position that you THINK you are right when so far you haven't shown me anything that should give you a basis for such confidence.

stripping away an entire populations fundamental rights to own property and defend themselves (even in the form of 'small' concessions) to me is a VERY serious matter and requires a bit more confidence than looking at one study that cites 6 examples.

all of your data and sources have been incomplete or based on few data points that coincidentally favor your pre-established position -- almost as if you took what you already believe and then went in search of information which supports it...
---

MariaTaylor posted...

s that I looked at the population, gun ownership, and homicide rate in various areas to make a ratio, then compared these numbers. they were basically all over the place... showing no direct correlation. places with high gun ownership had high or low homicide rates relative to the gun/owner population, places with low also shower high or low. it was pretty obvious that reducing the amount of guns had no discernible effect and no one at any point produced any convincing argument for why they should be banned (at varying levels based on the person arguing) other than the fact that there is "no reason" to have them. yet it had clearly been shown that reducing the numbers didn't actually reduce the homicides. I'd trust one of the three mentioned above to remember this better than anyone else cited so far (foolmo, lopen, or wang). I might be conflating some of this with another gun control topic that happened around the same time so you could try looking for that one (I almost want to say it was something like 'there is absolutely no reason to own a...') meisnewbie also posted in one of these two topics at some point under masaomihouzuki.

Okay. So assuming your research is accurate, then this would be a point against my "limits on guns/ammo" because that would suggest it wouldn't be effective. Fair enough. There is more to my argument than that however....
---

Dark Young Link posted...

You can perhaps see how this makes you confidence looks a bit shaky to some.

if GMUN didn't archive it then there's nothing I can do.

the topic happened, I know it, I'm probably not the only one. if someone else wants to come along and confirm then I guess you can start questioning whether they are telling the truth or not.

and if no one does and my "confidence" looks "shaky" to you it doesn't affect me in the slightest. thanks for reminding me, I guess? I'm truly dreading the -3's I'll get in the next user of the year.

StealThisSheen posted...

Also, with that mention of the data, I mentioned that simulations with gun owners had been run and data had been collected that way, as well, which was also a basis for my opinion, but that seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

I tend to address things in the order of which I believe they are important. I did notice that but I didn't think it was worth responding to. I mean it's just one study that you looked up that supports what you already believe, and I don't even really know that much about how the study was conducted or how valid its conclusions might be, or if there are any other studies out there which might contradict it.

you're still looking at this from the point of view where you're on side A and I'm on side B and like, I dunno, you want me to convince you that you're wrong or something (or rather you probably want me to fail to convince you that you're wrong). when I'm flat out not interested in that style of debate to begin with. that's not a board 8 thing. that's more just because my aim is more to discuss data and try to draw conclusions from that data. what you're doing is discussing conclusions and then trying to find isolated data points that support your conclusions. it's pretty much the opposite of what I'm interested in.

the only thing that has held my attention to this topic is that I also like talking about epistemology, and so this discussion about how arguments are constructed, the logic behind them, etc. is also enough to keep me around and posting (even if it does tend to derail from the initial discussions more often than not)
---

Well UotY being retired aside....

All I'm saying is that it could look like you weren't being sincere. I didn't imply that you'd care or be effected in any way by what other people thought of you. Just that, hey some of us are genuinely interested in debating the subject but without any evidence you're just saying hearsay., which doesn't help anyone.
---

Put a limit on magazine size, and possibly maximum rate of fire.

And before people come at me to argue that criminals will get versions of guns that get around the magazine limit...extremely unlikely.

Full-auto guns are currently banned. Now, how many of the mass shootings in America involved a full auto gun? Very few that I can think of. Very few shooters choose to get an illegal (for civilian use) AK-47 or M16. They get semi-auto (high capacity) guns, often an AR15. Why? Cause they know how to actually use the gun; they can go to a shooting range to test it out, get training on what to do if the gun jams, etc.

This isn't unprecedented--full auto guns were banned under Ronald Regan. There was also an "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994, which I think had some of these provisions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

This stayed in place for 10 years until 2004 (when it lapsed due to timeout). It restricted the maximum ammo capacity to 10 rounds, with a few other restrictions, and a long list of exception weapons.

It also had various special cases for people who could own banned weapons. (Police could still buy weapons banned by this provision, anyone already owning a gun legally could keep it).

This isn't rocket science, it's been done before, recently, and held up in court. It's the current crop of politicians who are refusing to budge on the issue. (Mostly anyone currently getting big donations from the NRA--which includes both current Democrats, and current Republicans. Find out if this is your representative and vote them out, give them a call and tell them that you'll vote against them if they keep taking NRA donations).
---

Dark Young Link posted...

There is more to my argument than that however....

to simplify and summarize what I'm talking about here. the previous topic I'm referencing before: I didn't PROVE that allowing guns will lead to less crime. I never intended to prove that. yet you guys continually, back then, and even now, keep treating me as if that's what I'm trying to "prove." I'm not.

I weakened your confidence that more guns will lead to more crime, by showing there was no visible correlation in the data between gun ownership and gun violence.

you should have returned as a person who wasn't so clearly entrenched in the mindset that 'we need to control guns because that will solve the violence problem.' we saw that controlling guns didn't seem to do that.

and yet you've returned to the next topic on the same subject with your same original confidence still intact and no memory of the previous discussion(s).

Dark Young Link posted...

All I'm saying is that it could look like you weren't being sincere. I didn't imply that you'd care or be effected in any way by what other people thought of you. Just that, hey some of us are genuinely interested in debating the subject but without any evidence you're just saying hearsay., which doesn't help anyone.

oh well. I'm known to be a very trustworthy person by anyone that knows me personally. once again if GMUN didn't archive it what exactly are you expecting me to do? pull the topic out of my ass? it feels like you're just repeating this because it makes you feel better about your position or something.

if you think you can't trust me then don't talk to me. I'd rather not waste effort communicating someone who can willfully discard anything I say under the pretense of thinking I'm being insincere. there's basically no limit to your ability to do that once you've decided to do it. makes all conversation utterly pointless.

metroid composite posted...

Find out if this is your representative and vote them out,

but what if I don't want them to budge on that issue???
---

MariaTaylor posted...

to simplify and summarize what I'm talking about here. the previous topic I'm referencing before: I didn't PROVE that allowing guns will lead to less crime. I never intended to prove that. yet you guys continually, back then, and even now, keep treating me as if that's what I'm trying to "prove." I'm not.

I don't recall saying this, so you're going to have to take it up with the people who did. If I said it in the previous topic then well, I don't vividly recall the exact details of every topic. If I did indeed do that in the topic you're talking about then, my bad.

MariaTaylor posted...

you should have returned as a person who wasn't so clearly entrenched in the mindset that 'we need to control guns because that will solve the violence problem.' we saw that controlling guns didn't seem to do that.

and yet you've returned to the next topic on the same subject with your same original confidence still intact and no memory of the previous discussion(s).

I actually think the issue is more in society than guns alone. I've mentioned several times in this topic that I feel that behavior is too lax regarding this issue. Why is it that you seem to remember my exact stances from previous discussions, yet I myself don't recall those details?

MariaTaylor posted...

oh well. I'm known to be a very trustworthy person by anyone that knows me personally. once again if GMUN didn't archive it what exactly are you expecting me to do? pull the topic out of my ass? it feels like you're just repeating this because it makes you feel better about your position or something.

if you think you can't trust me then don't talk to me. I'd rather not waste effort communicating someone who can willfully discard anything I say under the pretense of thinking I'm being insincere. there's basically no limit to your ability to do that once you've decided to do it. makes all conversation utterly pointless.

No. If neither of us can find the topic, then there's nothing that can be done. I just find it funny that you felt so confident about the exact details of an archived topic, only to later realized the topic can't be found to verify. It's an odd detail to miss is all I'm saying, considering you're certain about everything else.

I'm not saying that you're being insincere(and to be honest I mostly call people that when I strongly believe that they're trolling). I'm saying that some people could mistake you for being insincere.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Why is it that you seem to remember my exact stances from previous discussions, yet I myself don't recall those details?

I have a good memory and you seemingly don't

Dark Young Link posted...

I just find it funny that you felt so confident about the exact details of an archived topic, only to later realized the topic can't be found to verify. It's an odd detail to miss is all I'm saying, considering you're certain about everything else.

nothing about this is contradictory. if I could recall something from memory why would I need to look it up? also once again you're glossing over the fact that the very first thing I said was "I don't know if it's archived or not."

it's not as if I somehow 'forgot' this detail that it wasn't archived. from the very beginning I admitted that I didn't know if it was archived or not. because once again it's not my website and I don't know what he archives, why, or how long things stay in the database, or by which process they could be removed. this is something you have to take up with GMUN.

Dark Young Link posted...

I'm not saying that you're being insincere(and to be honest I mostly call people that when I strongly believe that they're trolling). I'm saying that some people could mistake you for being insincere.

once again your comments here only make sense if I started off saying 'yeahhhh bro I was reading this archived topic and it said x and y and z and... oh whoops its not even archived.' when I actually said 'x, y, and z have happened in bunch of topics in the past, that's why I no longer care. oh, you want specific examples? uh... go look at this topic, but I don't know if it's archived.'
---

Right, fair enough. You did say you wasn't sure if it was archived. Sorry for implying otherwise.
---

Yinz are weird.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

so I don't know if the archive only covers things from a specific time period,

i'm not as much of an expert on the archive as GMUN but i can say it's wildly inconsistent in what it contains. it only contains topics from '11-'12 and '16-'18 (excluding one period) and GMUN only started archiving every single topic last year, if i'm not mistaken (the archive is missing all of the old DWMF topics). so yeah, it's very unreliable for looking up old topics.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Id prefer no guns at all and the police to be armed with stun guns only.

Yeah, that'll totally stop criminals from obtaining weapons... It's mind-blowing that there are people who seriously believe this.
---

oh hey, i just found the foolmo topic in my own archive so i can at least confirm it exists! might post the data lisel was talking about here later.
---

I'd be in favor of them going down the Japanese style of gun law. Where you can have guns but it's way stricter than the US and there's continuing requirements to meet even after having the gun. I'll dig up the specifics later when I have time

Really the issue that the US is always going to face at this point is the sheer amount of guns in circulation and how ingrained it is in the culture. So even stricter requirements isn't going to do anything for a while due to how many are already out there

ShatteredElysium posted...

I'd be in favor of them going down the Japanese style of gun law.

You do realise that "Japanese style of gun law" works precisely because Japanese society is homogenous, right? That ship has already sailed for the US.
---

Vlado posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

I'd be in favor of them going down the Japanese style of gun law.

You do realise that "Japanese style of gun law" works precisely because Japanese society is homogenous, right? That ship has already sailed for the US.

This doesnt make logical sense.
---

Here's the solution:

Take all the people who LOVE THEIR GUNS and find a remote island and move them there. Let them have all the guns they want. THey can have Machine Guns if they like, I don't really care. We can even call it NRA Island or Gun Island. Whichever they prefer. Then everyone decent can choose never to visit that place, and actually have some common sense gun laws that require licensing, background checks, mental health checks, and personal references before letting Jim Bob from down the street buy an AR-15 so he can shoot up his classmates.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Vlado posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

I'd be in favor of them going down the Japanese style of gun law.

You do realise that "Japanese style of gun law" works precisely because Japanese society is homogenous, right? That ship has already sailed for the US.

This doesnt make logical sense.

Japan = high-trust, low-crime society, allowing their ideas (including this one) to work well. Diversity = low-trust, high-crime society.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Vlado posted...

ShatteredElysium posted...

I'd be in favor of them going down the Japanese style of gun law.

You do realise that "Japanese style of gun law" works precisely because Japanese society is homogenous, right? That ship has already sailed for the US.

This doesnt make logical sense.

You have to remember that Vlado doesn't like other races
---

When he says that ship has already sailed for America, I assume he means transatlantic slave ships
---

Corrik posted...

Yinz are weird.

now this I can definitely agree with! especially if you're talking about/describing me with that statement.
---

We don't need gun reform, we need geneticists to work on creating bulletproof humans. The next generation of society will no longer need to fear being shot if the guns are powerless.
---

Vlado ironically hates both diversity and the idea of global race mixing to the point that there are no different races anymore

Its weird
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Vlado ironically hates both diversity and the idea of global race mixing to the point that there are no different races anymore

Its weird

"Global race mixing" is the end goal of those pushing "diversity" on nations - they want to rule over a consumer/worker underclass of egoistical individualists of average intelligence and ability, and with no morals or loyalty to a country or people - mostly so that nobody can threaten their position (but I think also because they'd enjoy destroying the aspirations of mankind and making sure we'll never sail the stars).

Fortunately, that ship has sailed, too.
---

FWIW i just reread that entire foolmo topic and i didn't see any data about civilians stopping shootings after 0-2 killings. the only data that was posted concerned less guns per person not leading to less gun violence.
---

Vlado posted...

Fortunately, that ship has sailed, too.

More like the ark. Go on, Noah. Populate the new world with your inbred children.
---

Vlado posted...

"Global race mixing" is the end goal of those pushing "diversity" on nations - they want to rule over a consumer/worker underclass of egoistical individualists of average intelligence and ability, and with no morals or loyalty to a country or people - mostly so that nobody can threaten their position (but I think also because they'd enjoy destroying the aspirations of mankind and making sure we'll never sail the stars).

Fortunately, that ship has sailed, too.

Oh you can sail the stars? Neat
---

It's so weird how liberals hate the police and hate Trump but are still so gung ho about federal gun control and centralization of power.

Like how in the world does #resist not include gun rights? ACAB (except when they are taking your guns, then politely comply with their orders)
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

FWIW i just reread that entire foolmo topic and i didn't see any data about civilians stopping shootings after 0-2 killings. the only data that was posted concerned less guns per person not leading to less gun violence.

yes, that is what we're talking about here. the point isn't "I have posted data that refutes every argument n existence." the point is that I have posted data in the past that refuted arguments, but the same people still come back and post the same arguments. the cited topic is one such example and the first one that came to mind that I could clearly remember. as you've confirmed -- the topic did exist. so I'm not going to bother going through the effort of posting data or even really trying to convince people anymore. it's an exercise in futility.

SEP is asking me to go and research data to refute the argument that he is making, and I'm saying 'no, I don't want to, and here's why.'
---

f0olmor0n posted...

It's so weird how liberals hate the police and hate Trump but are still so gung ho about federal gun control and centralization of power.

Control is the only way society can work. We just need the right people in control, people that probably dont exist. But we can dream!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Control is the only way society can work.

hard disagree. I have no interest in being "controlled" and would rather take personal responsibility for myself.

Jakyl25 posted...

We just need the right people in control, people that probably dont exist.

and even if I did agree this just makes it sound like you fully acknowledge that your idyllic fantasy has literally no place in reality or a serious debate on how legislation that interacts with the real world should be determined. and yet you keep arguing in favor of the same side so...? I just don't get it either.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

yes, that is what we're talking about here. the point isn't "I have posted data that refutes every argument n existence." the point is that I have posted data in the past that refuted arguments, but the same people still come back and post the same arguments. the cited topic is one such example and the first one that came to mind that I could clearly remember. as you've confirmed -- the topic did exist. so I'm not going to bother going through the effort of posting data or even really trying to convince people anymore. it's an exercise in futility.

SEP is asking me to go and research data to refute the argument that he is making, and I'm saying 'no, I don't want to, and here's why.'

fair enough! i thought you were saying you posted that specific data in that topic but i guess that was a misinterpretation on my part.
---