RealGM

LoyalFan wrote:

johnnywishbone wrote:

LoyalFan wrote:
times are not changing my friend. you live in a bubble,

Definition of Projection wrote:Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

I live in a bubble?

LoyalFan wrote:
one in fact filled with ignorance. in the end all of this is empty talk of useless opinions. you will sooner see george bush elected president again before any congress or senate is able to pass any sort of assault weapons ban. this is a sad PR stunt by the president to save face and show he is doing something.


6 months from now people will not even remember this, just like their trayvon martin hoodies................

The times aren't changing? We have an African American President, Gay people can serve in the Army and George Bush has been banished to Texas. I'm sure you have a problem with all three of those too.

well bubble boy. i used my free friday night to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.


on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something

No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.

[/quote]


No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.[/quote]



full of shite much.........

No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.

Translation 1: I have no real rebuttal for these so I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 2: I'm too lazy to read but since you're on the other side, I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 3: I'm too closed minded to believe I could be wrong, ergo, these are crap

Translation 4: This is completely against my party line, so it's crap

Translation 5: I can't think of any response to rationally defend my position but I cant just disappear from the debate or I'll look bad so.....this is crap


Great job Loyal Fan. Absolutely outstanding. However, nobody opposed to your view will read what you posted, or if they do, they will have no real idea of what it is saying. You watch, whoever posts against what you posted will post drivel, or completely irrelevant things. As I said before...no ability to critically think and solve problems.

LoyalFan wrote:[
mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings.

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.

Seriously? That's what you got out of all his posting and links? His point is exactly the opposite of that. His point is that "assault type weapons" are at the bottom end of the statistical pool. Why are people so reluctant to question things that don't make any sense? When there are inconsistencies, people should ALWAYS ask questions...These laws are a perfect example. At face value they look OK, but they make no sense.

alphad0gz wrote:

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.

Seriously? That's what you got out of all his posting and links? His point is exactly the opposite of that. His point is that "assault type weapons" are at the bottom end of the statistical pool. Why are people so reluctant to question things that don't make any sense? When there are inconsistencies, people should ALWAYS ask questions...These laws are a perfect example. At face value they look OK, but they make no sense.

I didn't read much of what he posted. Not that I don't think it contains valuable insight; I just didn't have the time to go through all of it. Would you mind quoting a portion that demonstrates that only a small portion of columbine/sandy hook style mass-shootings are performed with assault rifles and/or high-capacity magazines?

Here's one excerpt that seems to answer that question:

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?

LoyalFan wrote:
well bubble boy. i used my free friday night

You're free on Friday night? Now that's a shocker.

LoyalFan wrote:
to give you some light reading and some good videos to watch. since you wanted to play ignorant with me and keep talking about australia and what some tailor made poll some biased news agency with an agenda had to say.

You mean what the Prime Minister of Australia had to say you freaking twit? Yeah, you know more about Australia than him. You ignoramus.

LoyalFan wrote:
next time you want to play a round of "i am going to continue to talk and make myself look stupid" i will be happy to help you with the making you look stupid part.

You are the expert on "talking stupid" - no argument there.

LoyalFan wrote:
on a more serious note though. you should try stepping outside of your bubble and see what people do and think in the rest of the country. you might learn something

I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?

Then you have to ask what portion of homicides are composed of mass shootings. Its all perspective. The fact is that few people are killed with these weapons. Its also a fact he could have killed just as many with handguns...same rate of fire...just as deadly...and clips can be changed in a couple of seconds. Those are facts. That these killings were done in a group is horrible but these new laws would not have stopped someone bent on doing this. They would simply have chosen a different weapon that was just as effective in a closed space. Come on...these laws do nothing because of the type of killers, the location of the shootings, and the available alternatives the rifles used.

I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.

I'll tag in.. Hawaii? Really? Good for you but did it occur to you that Hawaii is just another type of culture/environment altogether? Besides, you appear to be full of crap. AR-15s are not banned in Hawaii. The clip must be plugged to not allow more than 10 rounds. But before you come back with more crap I am posting a link for your pleasure reading. So instead of proving LoyalFan wrong, you instead make a case that having those guns available is not a factor at all. And please stop the thinking that a Bushmaster is inherently more dangerous than a Glock 9mm pistol, for example. Both have pretty much identical firing rates and both have clips that can be changed nearly instantaneously. But don't let facts stand in the way of your point of a good argument.

http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47

alphad0gz wrote:

No one's reading any of this crap. Especially when you don't post the link to the shytty source you probably got them from.

Translation 1: I have no real rebuttal for these so I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 2: I'm too lazy to read but since you're on the other side, I will attempt to discredit them

Translation 3: I'm too closed minded to believe I could be wrong, ergo, these are crap

Translation 4: This is completely against my party line, so it's crap

Translation 5: I can't think of any response to rationally defend my position but I cant just disappear from the debate or I'll look bad so.....this is crap


Great job Loyal Fan. Absolutely outstanding. However, nobody opposed to your view will read what you posted, or if they do, they will have no real idea of what it is saying. You watch, whoever posts against what you posted will post drivel, or completely irrelevant things. As I said before...no ability to critically think and solve problems.

oh your right. but like i said i didnt have anything to do last night. so i figured what the hell. they dont have to read or listen to it. but at least they will never be able to look back and say they were never presented with reality.

besides its not like they were interested in the truth anyway. much like bubble boy they live in a small pocket of what they translate as reality. not realizing that they are the minority in this equation

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:

LoyalFan wrote:[
mass shootings are a political tool. since columbine we have averaged 4 per year. in the big picture of overall crime, gun crime specifically, it is in the low single digit percentages at best

so the root question here is reducing gun crime, not just mass shootings.

Ok, and suppose a gun control proponent was to say that they are indeed focused on the specific issue of mass shootings a la columbine and sandy hook, as opposed to gun violence writ large?

Because it seems that you're conceding that a ban on assault rifles would decrease the amount of these mass shootings.

i didnt concede any such thing. we proved for 10 years that a ban on "assault weapons" and high cap magazines literally did nothing at all

Here's one excerpt that seems to answer that question:

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

The problem though is that this focuses on the "effect on crime rates," which may be too broad of a question. What if the question were narrowed to, what is the effect on mass-shooting rates?[/quote]


i understand where you are coming from but you have to understand that this makes no sense. its like saying you want eggs for breakfast but to be healthy you want just the egg whites. so you remove the yolk. but at the end of the day you are still eating eggs

so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

or will it really reduce anything at all. because the proof in the pudding is that it doesnt reduce anything. it didnt here. it didnt in england. it didnt in australia.


if the government of the people that the people elect is going to violate our constitutional rights they need to prove that it actually does what they propose it does. and the fact of the matter is it doesnt. end of story. so why exactly are we doing all this again?

[/quote]

I live in Hawaii, where we have an assault weapons ban. And guess what? We have the second lowest homicide rate in the country. And people hunt, and I don't feel any less "free" or 'safe" because of it.

Now in regards to the University of Chicago professor's book. We understand that an assault weapons ban isn't going to fix the extraordinarily high murder rate in this country. But it will stop massacres like Newtown. I understand you don't consider those kids statistically significantly but why don't you try explaining that to their parents you callous prick. And to say you need a semi-automatic machine gun to protect your home is paranoia at it's best.[/quote]


i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude

E86 wrote:

Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?

No35 wrote:

E86 wrote:

Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?

these people actually have not heard much of anything, other than what cnn and diane feinsteine tells them

LoyalFan wrote:
i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude

Believe me, Hawaii has it's own set of problems not the least of which is a Meth/Ice epidemic. And we also have a very low high school graduation rate. Believe me, plenty of **** does down. And the reason we have an assault weapons ban is in response to a tragedy. And guess what? No more mass shootings. The reason I think Hawaii, like Australia, is a good example is you can't buy a gun at a Virginia gun show and then drive it to Hawaii. So we can enforce gun laws without worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

Now, back to our Professor Lott. I have to admit I had never heard of this foolio before. But his book "More Crimes, Less Violence" has been widely discredited. Now I understand the politics of personal destruction and that releasing a book like this would draw a lot of critics regardless of the strength of the conclusion. But when presented with the "coding errors" in his study Lott had his name removed from his own study. Now what does that tell you? In addition, he was going around with a pseudonym (pretending to be one of his students) and was going around trolling saying how great his book was and what a great professor he is. Now if that doesn't tell you the guy isn't playing with a full deck I don't know what will.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

LoyalFan wrote:
so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

Well yeah, this is how I would frame the question. At least acknowledge that there is some benefit of these laws, which there would be if we decrease the amount of mass-shootings by one per year.

Now you might think that's totally insignificant, but how significant is the burden on gun-owners if we say, for example you have to use a 10-capacity magazine, instead of 20?

This is the kinda of balancing we need to get into BEFORE we can simply assert that there has been a violation of constitutional rights.

johnnywishbone wrote:

LoyalFan wrote:
i have to admit. i like you. you are not very bright but i like you. and i want to thank you for actually proving how small the bubble you actually live in is. hawaii is a beautiful bubble. a bubble surrounded by the largest ocean in the world. and here i was giving you credit for being 1 of the other mindless morons who live in a city and never drives outside his own neighborhood. you on the other hand live on a tropical island isolated against the realities of the rest of the world.

news flash. we had an assault weapon ban in place when columbine happened. so much for your logic about it stopping massacres like newtown


but now that you have proven to me how ignorant and isolated you are i no longer have to even pretend to hear anything you have to say.

have a nice day and go hang 10 dude

Believe me, Hawaii has it's own set of problems not the least of which is a Meth/Ice epidemic. And we also have a very low high school graduation rate. Believe me, plenty of **** does down. And the reason we have an assault weapons ban is in response to a tragedy. And guess what? No more mass shootings. The reason I think Hawaii, like Australia, is a good example is you can't buy a gun at a Virginia gun show and then drive it to Hawaii. So we can enforce gun laws without worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

Now, back to our Professor Lott. I have to admit I had never heard of this foolio before. But his book "More Crimes, Less Violence" has been widely discredited. Now I understand the politics of personal destruction and that releasing a book like this would draw a lot of critics regardless of the strength of the conclusion. But when presented with the "coding errors" in his study Lott had his name removed from his own study. Now what does that tell you? In addition, he was going around with a pseudonym (pretending to be one of his students) and was going around trolling saying how great his book was and what a great professor he is. Now if that doesn't tell you the guy isn't playing with a full deck I don't know what will.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/04/25/0426/

every time you speak you continue to prove me right. you live in a BUBBLE. australia is in a BUBBLE


THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT LIVE IN A BUBBLE. AND YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN HAWAII


http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/i ... &Itemid=47

No35 wrote:

E86 wrote:

Starks1994 wrote:Through out this entire debate on guns, I still have yet to hear an explanation on what purpose a citizen could have with an assault rifle.

They don't. The term "assault rifle" gets thrown around without many people understanding it. Real assault rifles are banned, you cannot legally own an automatic weapon, period. An AR-15 bushmaker is a low caliber semi-automatic weapon, the only reason people say "assault rifle" is because of the ability to add certain accessories. But in the end, no one outside of the military or police own any real assault weapons.

Ever hear of a Class 3 license?

Class 3 license? lol.

Class 3 weapons prior to 1986 you can own, but it's a ridiculous amount of red tape to actually possess one. Your run of the mill gun owner will likely not have a class 3 weapon. You cannot walk into a gun store and buy a machine gun like you can a rifle, and in some states you cannot own a class 3 weapon at all.

So yeah, there is still a ban on automatic weapons. You cannot buy a new machine gun for personal use.

ORANGEandBLUE wrote:

LoyalFan wrote:
so basically your question in the passing of these laws is to limit a crime that only happens 4-7 times a year. because that is the average of mass shootings, since columbine. 4-7 shootings a year. so the logic with these laws is to violate our constitutional rights to go from 4-7 shootings per year and reduce that by maybe 1.

Well yeah, this is how I would frame the question. At least acknowledge that there is some benefit of these laws, which there would be if we decrease the amount of mass-shootings by one per year.

Now you might think that's totally insignificant, but how significant is the burden on gun-owners if we say, for example you have to use a 10-capacity magazine, instead of 20?

This is the kinda of balancing we need to get into BEFORE we can simply assert that there has been a violation of constitutional rights.

you are determined to force some semblance of benefit into a ban. there is 0 benefit. none. zip. zilch. nada. you seriously need to get that through your head. it wont limit shootings at all. it will just MAYBE make them chose a different gun

and once again. columbine happened during the first ban which limited magazines. it had no effect on that. and it also had no effect on gun violence at all.

you cant squeeze money from a tree.

LoyalFan wrote:[

you are determined to force some semblance of benefit into a ban. there is 0 benefit. none. zip. zilch. nada. you seriously need to get that through your head. it wont limit shootings at all. it will just MAYBE make them chose a different gun

and once again. columbine happened during the first ban which limited magazines. it had no effect on that. and it also had no effect on gun violence at all.

you cant squeeze money from a tree.

But you yourself just said it would reduce the number of mass-shootings by about 1...

And with a different gun, they are less able to inflict as much damage.