Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Bigfoot]

I have to comment on the tactics of some gun supporters to these threads.

Pogo mentioned being neg repped by posters who hadn't commented on the thread - I also got neg repped by Darkwind (who I haven't seen posting on the thread) for my apparently wanting to confiscate guns. In fact, I don't recommend confiscating guns, and would not support such a move.

In all, I've been neg repped 5 times on this thread, and yet everything I have posted has been linked, sourced can be confirmed elsewhere.

I'm also amazed how many simply fatuous arguments we have seen here - insisting the US can not be compared to Germany, the UK or France - and then comparing the US with Switzerland. Presenting UK crime figures - from 1997. Posting material without links or sources.

Any neutrals reading through these threads would do well to consider what this all means....

Sure enough here's the latest loser to want the thread shut down:
Hi, you have received -2112 reputation points from Ernie S..
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Give it up.

Regards,
Ernie S.

"Give it up". Says it all. A recurring pattern of people who just cannot stand that the idea that this should be examined. People who need to barge in and control others as if running some kind of rhetorical Mafia. Neg away. Neg here, neg there, neg until the sun collapses; you will never shut us up. That is a promise. Trust me.

Drama.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I suspect.

I suspect because you have an agenda, and you don't have any integrity.

Let's start with the first lie that the hate site you cut & pasted from told;

"They aren't coming to take your guns."

Well, in usual leftist fashion, this isn't exactly true - in fact it isn't even faintly true.

{ Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.}

Missouri Democrats Introduce Gun-Grabbing Legislation | The Dana Show

The other 9 lies you listed are just as easily dispelled.

Do you ever bring anything but low-hanging fruit to the party?

I put your fallacy in different colours so you might find them this time. Fun game: see if you can spot 'em by yourself.

Is an assault weapon a gun? Why don't you just say that you don't want to take all of our guns, this time?

An assault weapon is a gun. But a gun is not necessarly an assault weapon. Just as a Studebaker is a car but a car is not necessarily a Studebaker. To say that would be a fallacy of generalization, and that's what he did.

Here's what you might not be getting since you're committed to taking this so personally: That isn't an argument about whether or not "they're coming to take your guns". This is an argument about whether his statement is logically valid. Does that help at all????

And once again, my name is not Dave Gilson. I didn't write the article, nor do I know the guy. I simply presented it, without comment, for discussion. So "why don't you say" is bullshit. You want to attack the article, good, attack the article. You keep missing and hitting the messenger.

 

[Spoonman]

Yes, I suspect.

I suspect because you have an agenda, and you don't have any integrity.

Let's start with the first lie that the hate site you cut & pasted from told;

"They aren't coming to take your guns."

Well, in usual leftist fashion, this isn't exactly true - in fact it isn't even faintly true.

{ Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.}

Missouri Democrats Introduce Gun-Grabbing Legislation | The Dana Show

The other 9 lies you listed are just as easily dispelled.

Do you ever bring anything but low-hanging fruit to the party?

I put your fallacy in different colours so you might find them this time. Fun game: see if you can spot 'em by yourself.

Is an assault weapon a gun? Why don't you just say that you don't want to take all of our guns, this time?

it's a step by step approach. limit what can be sold. register what exists. make what exists as limitly functional as possible. have the data to begin confescations of certain types of fire arms in the future. Feinsteins bill is calling for them now.

 

[Uncensored2008]

An assault weapon is a gun. But a gun is not necessarly an assault weapon.

And in your intellectually dishonest opinion, this is relevant how?

The hate site you cited said it's a myth that "they're coming for our guns." But the fact is that leftists in several states ARE looking to come and confiscate guns. That they would not confiscate ALL guns the first time around does nothing to support your dishonest claim.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you ever bring anything but low-hanging fruit to the party?

I put your fallacy in different colours so you might find them this time. Fun game: see if you can spot 'em by yourself.

Is an assault weapon a gun? Why don't you just say that you don't want to take all of our guns, this time?

it's a step by step approach. limit what can be sold. register what exists. make what exists as limitly functional as possible. have the data to begin confescations of certain types of fire arms in the future. Feinsteins bill is calling for them now.

 

[Mustang]

Do you ever bring anything but low-hanging fruit to the party?

I put your fallacy in different colours so you might find them this time. Fun game: see if you can spot 'em by yourself.

Is an assault weapon a gun? Why don't you just say that you don't want to take all of our guns, this time?

it's a step by step approach. limit what can be sold. register what exists. make what exists as limitly functional as possible. have the data to begin confescations of certain types of fire arms in the future. Feinsteins bill is calling for them now.

limitly? Is that a secret gun control word?

 

[Spoonman]

Is an assault weapon a gun? Why don't you just say that you don't want to take all of our guns, this time?

it's a step by step approach. limit what can be sold. register what exists. make what exists as limitly functional as possible. have the data to begin confescations of certain types of fire arms in the future. Feinsteins bill is calling for them now.

limitly? Is that a secret gun control word?

i wouldn't put anything past anti gun nuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

it's a step by step approach. limit what can be sold. register what exists. make what exists as limitly functional as possible. have the data to begin confescations of certain types of fire arms in the future. Feinsteins bill is calling for them now.

limitly? Is that a secret gun control word?

i wouldn't put anything past anti gun nuts.

We are a nation of laws. You have a pea brain filled with overwhelming FEAR, dogma and ignorance.

 

[Pogo]

An assault weapon is a gun. But a gun is not necessarly an assault weapon.

And in your intellectually dishonest opinion, this is relevant how?

The hate site you cited said it's a myth that "they're coming for our guns." But the fact is that leftists in several states ARE looking to come and confiscate guns. That they would not confiscate ALL guns the first time around does nothing to support your dishonest claim.

It's called "logic", Socrates. ("LAH-jik") You make a claim about apples and then support it by citing oranges, that's called a "fallacy" (PHALLUS-see?)

Now on the "your dishonest claim" bullshit, for, I dunno, the fourth (?) time now, I am not Dave Gilson. It's not "my" claim; it's what we call an "article" in a "publication".

Me not write article.

Me not re-write article.

Me post article. Gilson write.

Let's try it like this.....
Here Pogo ..................................................................................Here Dave Gilson
[].................................................................................... []

Whaa?? Different people!! See? WOW!! Who knew.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's called "logic", Socrates.

No, it's called "lying," Pinocchio. You posted an utterly false claim from a hate site, then when called on it you thought you could worm out of the lie by a lame attempt to mock.

("LAH-jik") You make a claim about apples and then support it by citing oranges, that's called a "fallacy" (PHALLUS-see?)

The fuck you say.

Your claim;

"MYTH #1 - They're coming to take our guns."

Except that it isn't a myth, I posted several articles proving that this is EXACTLY what the fuckwads are attempting to do.

Then you come in like Urkle and whine "IT'S NOT ALL GUNS." Who the fuck cares you little worm? That wasn't you're claim, nor my refutation of the lie you posted.

Now on the "your dishonest claim" bullshit, for, I dunno, the fourth (?) time now, I am not Dave Gilson. It's not "my" claim; it's what we call an "article" in a "publication".

Who cares? You posted and defended the lies.

Again, you have an agenda, but you lack any semblance of integrity.

Me not write article.

Me not re-write article.

You not literate.

 

[Pogo]

It's called "logic", Socrates.

No, it's called "lying," Pinocchio. You posted an utterly false claim from a hate site, then when called on it you thought you could worm out of the lie by a lame attempt to mock.

("LAH-jik") You make a claim about apples and then support it by citing oranges, that's called a "fallacy" (PHALLUS-see?)

The fuck you say.

Your claim;

"MYTH #1 - They're coming to take our guns."

Except that it isn't a myth, I posted several articles proving that this is EXACTLY what the fuckwads are attempting to do.

Then you come in like Urkle and whine "IT'S NOT ALL GUNS." Who the fuck cares you little worm? That wasn't you're claim, nor my refutation of the lie you posted.

Now on the "your dishonest claim" bullshit, for, I dunno, the fourth (?) time now, I am not Dave Gilson. It's not "my" claim; it's what we call an "article" in a "publication".

Who cares? You posted and defended the lies.

Again, you have an agenda, but you lack any semblance of integrity.

Me not write article.

Me not re-write article.

You not literate.

Me not literate like you not stoopid.
Your entire post is nakedly dishonest.

I posted an article, like anybody else does. All of a sudden I'm responsible for writing it?
I have neither "written" nor "defended" the article ; you just made that up. I've discussed tangents and general philoosphies; I brought in a side story about Detroit and Windsor; and other than that I've been shooting down fallacies from the likes of you, which is what just happened. But I haven't expounded on the opinions of the OP itself -- it's just there for open ended discussion.

Wanna prove it?

Go find one. Put up or shut up.

Fucking lying sack of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Me not literate like you not stoopid.
Your entire post is nakedly dishonest.

ROFL

Irony lives.

I posted an article, like anybody else does. All of a sudden I'm responsible for writing it?

You're responsible for posting it, you're responsible for defending it, you're responsible for intellectual dishonesty in attempting to dismiss the refutation of the article through feigned mockery.

I have neither "written" nor "defended" the article ; you just made that up. I've discussed tangents and general philoosphies; I brought in a side story about Detroit and Windsor; and other than that I've been shooting down fallacies from the likes of you, which is what just happened. But I haven't expounded on the opinions of the OP itself -- it's just there for open ended discussion.

No one claimed you "wrote it," moron. Quite the opposite, I pointed out that you cut and pasted from one of the hate sites, right off the bat. But you have defended it - continuously.

Wanna prove it?

Done long ago, Pinocchio.

Go find one. Put up or shut up.

Fucking lying sack of shit.

You are indeed a lying sack of shit,

Keep digging.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wake up Doofus -- I started this thread, I should know who it's "form". I've never called for "gun control" in my life. I've specifically spelled out, including in this thread, that I don't think it's effective to just throw legislation at the problem and tell ourselves we did something.

Or does that not fit the narrative your puppetmasters told you to assume -- since in a world of simplistic partisan political dichotomy, 'you liberals all look alike?
Duh....

Some of y'all really are like freaking little babies whining that their pacifier might get taken away. Grow up already. I ain't your daddy.

You posted this claptrap.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

You can fact check that all day long, you will end up with the fact that guns don't kill people, yet you called it a myth.

Want to tell me again you aren't pro gun control?

That's part of the article, pasted verbatim. As you already noted. And regardless who wrote it, it still says nothing about "gun control"
DUH.

Keep going, I have more neg reps available.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you see my name on the byline, yes or no?

No, I don't rewrite the articles. I simply posted an article for discussion, just as you or anyone else does every day here.
Are every one of those articles flawless? No?? Yet you want mine to be? Well that's the same unethical crap you pull when you come in negging the thread, and then threatening people that you'll do it again if they "squeal". What do you think this is, the Mafia?

Your pitiful attempts at ad hominem, like your mindless negs, really do not interest me. They make no point other than that you'd like the entire dialogue to STFU.

And yes, it's a word once I make it one. When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean; neither more nor less. Break a brain sweat and figure it out.

You posted it, and nothing in your post indicates any disagreement with the positions.

That means you take the heat.

You could always cry to mommy if I am too mean.

Well guess what Einstein, I wrote nothing in the OP that took any position at all. I don't do that because I believe an OP should be neutral and open-ended. I simply excerpted the article and said let's go.

Or didn't you bother to read that either??
Have you never been on a message board before today?

What about "saddened by women who don't want to be raped"? Figured that out yet?

Perhaps you're on a third-grade reading level. Perhaps you're mouthing your words as you read this. I don't know but until you learn to read you're a complete waste of time.

Ypu agree with me that you posted the article, and that you said nothing about how stupid any of it is, yet you are still crying.

Amazing.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Pogo, you are aware that we are keeping this thread alive (by posting in it frequently), because we want everyone to see what liars the anti-gun people are. Are you aware of that?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ypu agree with me that you posted the article, and that you said nothing about how stupid any of it is, yet you are still crying.

Amazing.

Read these three threads, you'll enjoy them:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...tennesee-1946-ever-occured-3.html#post6877551

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...2000-world-war-ii-veterans-drunken-thugs.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...t-unarmed-people-can-be-easily-oppressed.html

Also, I got a message for the Federal Government:




http://www.saveamericafoundation.co...-guns-and-freedom-by-former-sealmatt-bracken/

http://www.saveamericafoundation.co...-guns-and-freedom-by-former-sealmatt-bracken/


http://www.saveamericafoundation.co...-guns-and-freedom-by-former-sealmatt-bracken/

http://www.saveamericafoundation.co...-guns-and-freedom-by-former-sealmatt-bracken/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay..............so you gun rights people have said that guns don't kill people, but rather that people kill people.

Don't you think that background checks should be implemented then? We'd be able to identify those that may be a bit off who think it's okay to kill others. Even if it means a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or even a pillow to smother them.

Background checks would help a great deal. Even LaPierre said it was a good idea in the late 90's, but then he decided to go against what he'd said, because Obama said it was a sound idea.

Background checks like the one that Dorner went through before he bought a gun, or maybe the one he went through before he joined the Navy, or like the one he went through before he became a police officer.

Considering the depth of the background checks he went through, and the fact that they didn't predict his behavior, why, exactly, should I sopport background checks?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So why aren't you holding skullhead to that same standard.

We had 16,000 gun suicides and 11,000 gun murders last year.

and only 201 cases of homicide in self-defense.

No one tracks self defense statistics unless the person involved is charged and acquitted. That number, where ever you dug it up from, if it is real, actually indicates the number of times people were charged with murder when they shouldn't have been, not the number of times someone killed an attacker in self defense.

Actually, the number tracks how many times a murder was ruled a justifiable homicide...

FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 15

Happens about as often as people dying from lightening strikes.

Wrong again. The chart you just linked to covers the killing of a felon during a flony by a private citizen when it is reported that way to the FBI.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So.............your answer is no registry, even if the people are totally unstable?

Unstable people are the ones responsible for things like the CO shooting in the movies, and the shooting at Sandy Hook.

Apparently these shooters are SANE enough to go to GUN-FREE-ZONES. You are aware that the movie shooter purposely avoided all of the theaters CLOSER to his residence because they permitted customers to carry handguns.

If someone is SANE enough to figure out they can only carry out their plans at GUN FREE ZONES, then they are not CRAZY, they are EVIL.

THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL
THEY ARE EVIL

EVIL PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO APPEAR SANE TO PROFESSIONALS <snip>

"Evil" is not a valid argumentative value. It's a vague subjective emotion. You can't make an argument with emotion. All that is is a rant. Try again.

Evil is not an emotion.

 

[OKTexas]

How does Canada'a homide rate compare to that of the US?

how did it compare before gun control laws? gun control laws have not reduced their rates any more than the rates in the USA have dropped with out gun control. the same can be said for the UK gun laws. Or the austrailian gun laws.

I somehow didn't think you'd want to answer that....

Canada had 173 gun-related murders last year. The US had 9,147.

So which country has the best record?

Considering Canada has about 10% of the US population, I'd say the US.