Good for the Sandy Hook families!

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

As I said above, are you gun nuts are dangerous,  just to varying degrees.

I'd love to take this down it's logical path if you're willing to.

Wouldn't you need a crash course in logic first?

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I'd love to take this down it's logical path if you're willing to.

Wouldn't you need a crash course in logic first?

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

You don't need to share your family history with me. It really doesn't mean that much.

Vlad can I ask you a question?

Is that a question?

Is that a question?

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

xsanguine wrote:

Is that a question?

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

xsanguine wrote:

Is that a question?

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

That's a really stupid question. I'm gonna give you another chance to ask a different question. Go ahead.

#Eviscerated

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

xsanguine wrote:

What is the percentage of legal gun owners that have assaulted or murdered someone else with their gun(s)?

That's a really stupid question. I'm gonna give you another chance to ask a different question. Go ahead.

Exactly.

Thanks for proving my first point, Vlad. We don't need to go on to the next... appreciate you clearing that up for me.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

That's a really stupid question.  I'm gonna give you another chance to ask a different question. Go ahead.

Exactly.

Thanks for proving my first point, Vlad. We don't need to go on to the next... appreciate you clearing that up for me.

Congrats for winning the debate twice in the same thread!  Are you doing a victory lap?

I should've known better than to go up against these intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Exactly.

Thanks for proving my first point, Vlad. We don't need to go on to the next... appreciate you clearing that up for me.

Congrats for winning the debate twice in the same thread! Are you doing a victory lap?

Probably. I had follow up questions but that would have just been mean and unfair. And I don't do that to posters, or anyone that I like but disagree with.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Congrats for winning the debate twice in the same thread!  Are you doing a victory lap?

Probably. I had follow up questions but that would have just been mean and unfair. And I don't do that to posters, or anyone that I like but disagree with.

I should've known better than to go up against you intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I was never worthy of this debate or your questions.

In a few days there will probably be another mass shooting somewhere in this country. I will try to be more prepared with my numbers after that. Because statistics are what matter most here.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Probably. I had follow up questions but that would have just been mean and unfair. And I don't do that to posters, or anyone that I like but disagree with.

I should've known better than to go up against you intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I was never worthy of this debate or your questions.

Don't be so down on yourself. It's not like I'm going to hold it against you. Just get up, dust yourself off and maybe read into things a little bit more on the topic. You'll bounce back in no time. I believe you in. <3

"What is the percentage of legal gun owners that....?"

Boy that was a good one! I'm still kicking myself for not seeing that one coming!

BTW, do you really live in Brooklyn? I used to work in Jersey City. Talk about needing a gun, huh??

Man is Vlad a sore loser.

Vlad wrote:"What is the percentage of legal gun owners that....?"

Boy that was a good one! I'm still kicking myself for not seeing that one coming!

BTW,  do you really live in Brooklyn? I used to work in Jersey City.  Talk about needing a gun, huh??

Yeah, it's pretty useful when extinguishing claims that gun owners are inherently dangerous. It can also lead to bringing up statistics regarding other social problems related to gun violence that we willfully ignore or act like they don't exist but even in and of itself it pretty much ends that argument.

I just moved back to MI from Brooklyn at the end of last summer. And yes, the laws in that area of the nation are not friendly to self-defense, liberty or freedom. There's pros and cons to everything, though.

Vlad is mad. Vlad is sad.

What a mad sad day Vlad has had.

--Dr. Seuss

duffy munn wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Congrats for winning the debate twice in the same thread!  Are you doing a victory lap?

I should've known better than to go up against these intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Very true and love this comeback Vlad. For real. I don't answers for our fucked world and neither to any of the opinioned whack jobs is thread.

Strangely, I prefer your takes on all things negative on MSU sports.

Let's do battle, duffy.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Probably. I had follow up questions but that would have just been mean and unfair. And I don't do that to posters, or anyone that I like but disagree with.

I should've known better than to go up against you intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I was never worthy of this debate or your questions.

In a few days there will probably be another mass shooting somewhere in this country. I will try to be more prepared with my numbers after that. Because statistics are what matter most here.

I think Mental Health reform is important here. You can't legislate guns out of the U.S. It's impossible. We have to make it harder for people to get them, I am a billion percent behind that and welcome it. It's redic how easy guns are obtained. Hell, I can't buy certain cleaners in america that are used to manufacture meth without bending over and having them look up my anus, but I can walk into any gun show with a hole in my pants and my penis showing and get a nice weapon.

I think more and more we need to look at the mental health end. Make it easier to get help, make it less of a stigma, and do something about med costs. I will never be able to prove by doing that we have prevented a mass shooting becuase that would be impossible to prove, but I know it would help.

What the fuck happened on this thread? I step away for a couple hours and all hell breaks loose.

DWags wrote: Hell, I can't buy certain cleaners in america that are used to manufacture meth without bending over and having them look up my anus

And so you want more of that?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:"What is the percentage of legal gun owners that....?"

Boy that was a good one! I'm still kicking myself for not seeing that one coming!

BTW, do you really live in Brooklyn? I used to work in Jersey City. Talk about needing a gun, huh??

Yeah, it's pretty useful when extinguishing claims that gun owners are inherently dangerous. It can also lead to bringing up statistics regarding other social problems that we willfully ignore or act like they don't exist but even in and of itself it pretty much ends that argument.

I just moved back to MI from Brooklyn at the end of last summer. And yes, the laws in that area of the nation are not friendly to self-defense, liberty or freedom. There's pros and cons to everything, though.

Yeah, I mean, your argument is right up there with "Only a fraction of Ford Pintos explode, therefore not all Ford Pintos can be dangerous". And my personal favorite "Only a small fraction of the people who smoke get cancer, therefore cigarette smoking can't be harmful to your health."

The brilliance in those arguments is a thing to behold, really.

Rocinante wrote:What the fuck happened on this thread? I step away for a couple hours and all hell breaks loose.

Vlad and I were having a discussion about gun control. You're more than welcome to join in, Roc.

DWags wrote:

Vlad wrote:

I should've known better than to go up against you intellectual giants, famed statisticians, and ardent defenders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  I was never worthy of this debate or your questions.

In a few days there will probably be another mass shooting somewhere in this country. I will try to be more prepared with my numbers after that. Because statistics are what matter most here.

I think Mental Health reform is important here. You can't legislate guns out of the U.S. It's impossible. We have to make it harder for people to get them, I am a billion percent behind that and welcome it. It's redic how easy guns are obtained. Hell, I can't buy certain cleaners in america that are used to manufacture meth without bending over and having them look up my anus, but I can walk into any gun show with a hole in my pants and my penis showing and get a nice weapon.

I think more and more we need to look at the mental health end. Make it easier to get help, make it less of a stigma, and do something about med costs. I will never be able to prove by doing that we have prevented a mass shooting becuase that would be impossible to prove, but I know it would help.

Tell me more. How would that work exactly?

It's a red herring.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Yeah, it's pretty useful when extinguishing claims that gun owners are inherently dangerous. It can also lead to bringing up statistics regarding other social problems that we willfully ignore or act like they don't exist but even in and of itself it pretty much ends that argument.

I just moved back to MI from Brooklyn at the end of last summer. And yes, the laws in that area of the nation are not friendly to self-defense, liberty or freedom. There's pros and cons to everything, though.

Yeah, I mean, your argument is right up there with "Only a fraction of Ford Pintos explode, therefore not all Ford Pintos can be dangerous". And my personal favorite "Only a small fraction of the people who smoke get cancer, therefore cigarette smoking can't be harmful to your health."

The brilliance in those arguments is a thing to behold, really.

Not quite and here's another part of how you make an argument that does you more a disservice than you realize.

For example, I didn't make the claim guns can't be dangerous. That's where your analogies are pointing.

For example, the Ford Pinto was a manufacturing defect, meaning it was not operating as intended. If you want to make a car analogy you could say to me...."So you're saying that we have hundreds of millions of cars in the US yet only a fraction of those end up killing someone else." It's not perfect but it's at least apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.

An even better analogy would be "50,000 people die in car accidents every year yet anyone can just walk into a car dealership and buy a car. You don't even have to show them your driver's license or go through a background check to indicate you are a safe driver."

You can apply the same logic above to the cigarette smoking analogy.

You'll get there, dude. It's just a matter of trying arguments out and fixing them once other people point out the flaws in your analogies and arguments. The mistake a lot of people make is that they make an argument that gets dismantled and then put their fingers in their ears and act like their argument still makes sense. Don't be that guy.

Feel free to run anymore by me and just know I'm here to help you out.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Yeah, I mean, your argument is right up there with "Only a fraction of Ford Pintos explode, therefore not all Ford Pintos can be dangerous". And my personal favorite "Only a small fraction of the people who smoke get cancer, therefore cigarette smoking can't be harmful to your health."

The brilliance in those arguments is a thing to behold, really.

Not quite and here's another part of how you make an argument that does you more a disservice than you realize.

For example, I didn't make the claim guns can't be dangerous. That's where your analogies are pointing.

For example, the Ford Pinto was a manufacturing defect, meaning it was not operating as intended. If you want to make a car analogy you could say to me...."So you're saying that we have hundreds of millions of cars in the US yet only a fraction of those end up killing someone else." It's not perfect but it's at least apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.

An even better analogy would be "50,000 people die in car accidents every day yet anyone can just walk into a car dealership and buy a car. You don't even have to show them your driver's license or go through a background check to indicate you are a safe driver."

You can apply the same logic above to the cigarette smoking analogy.

You'll get there, dude. It's just a matter of trying arguments out and fixing them once other people point out the flaws in your analogies and arguments. The mistake a lot of people make is that they make an argument that gets dismantled and then put their fingers in their ears and act like their argument still makes sense. Don't be that guy.

Feel free to run anymore by me and just know I'm here to help you out.

Well, now that you're in a debate with yourself, I don't really see much room for me here. My work is done. Enjoy!  Just remember what mother said, you'll go blind!

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:What the fuck happened on this thread? I step away for a couple hours and all hell breaks loose.

Vlad and I were having a discussion about gun control. You're more than welcome to join in, Roc.

Nah. I'm gonna drink. Thanks though.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Not quite and here's another part of how you make an argument that does you more a disservice than you realize.

For example, I didn't make the claim guns can't be dangerous. That's where your analogies are pointing.

For example, the Ford Pinto was a manufacturing defect, meaning it was not operating as intended. If you want to make a car analogy you could say to me...."So you're saying that we have hundreds of millions of cars in the US yet only a fraction of those end up killing someone else." It's not perfect but it's at least apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.

An even better analogy would be "50,000 people die in car accidents every day yet anyone can just walk into a car dealership and buy a car. You don't even have to show them your driver's license or go through a background check to indicate you are a safe driver."

You can apply the same logic above to the cigarette smoking analogy.

You'll get there, dude. It's just a matter of trying arguments out and fixing them once other people point out the flaws in your analogies and arguments. The mistake a lot of people make is that they make an argument that gets dismantled and then put their fingers in their ears and act like their argument still makes sense. Don't be that guy.

Feel free to run anymore by me and just know I'm here to help you out.

Well, now that you're in a debate with yourself, I don't really see much room for me here. My work is done. Enjoy!  Just remember what mother said, you'll go blind!

No, no, you see we were done debating at least a page ago (some would argue pages ago but I'm not that mean), now we're just trying to fine tune some things so that we can send you out there a much more fire-tested opinion haver.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad and I were having a discussion about gun control. You're more than welcome to join in, Roc.

Nah. I'm gonna drink. Thanks though.

Way ahead of ya... let me know if you change your mind, though.

What ya drinkin?

DWags wrote:

I think more and more we need to look at the mental health end. Make it easier to get help, make it less of a stigma, and do something about med costs. I will never be able to prove by doing that we have prevented a mass shooting becuase that would be impossible to prove, but I know it would help.

So is our aim to stop the statistical anomaly that is "mass shootings" or is our aim to stop gun violence?

Because one of those is far more wider reaching than the other... the problem is that all the facts indicate a problem no one wants to talk about.

Vlad wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think Mental Health reform is important here. You can't legislate guns out of the U.S. It's impossible. We have to make it harder for people to get them, I am a billion percent behind that and welcome it. It's redic how easy guns are obtained. Hell, I can't buy certain cleaners in america that are used to manufacture meth without bending over and having them look up my anus, but I can walk into any gun show with a hole in my pants and my penis showing and get a nice weapon.

I think more and more we need to look at the mental health end. Make it easier to get help, make it less of a stigma, and do something about med costs. I will never be able to prove by doing that we have prevented a mass shooting becuase that would be impossible to prove, but I know it would help.

Tell me more. How would that work exactly?

It's a red herring.

I don't know if this is the answer, but it is a start. Stop fucking cutting mental health.

In the past three years, $4.35 billion for services has been cut from state budgets across the country, according to a report by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute. While states are slashing funding for treatment, private care is getting harder to obtain. Mental health advocates say that the number of providers nationwide has decreased in recent years. The ones that do practice often don’t take insurance or are all booked up.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think more and more we need to look at the mental health end. Make it easier to get help, make it less of a stigma, and do something about med costs. I will never be able to prove by doing that we have prevented a mass shooting becuase that would be impossible to prove, but I know it would help.

So is our aim to stop the statistical anomaly that is "mass shootings" or is our aim to stop gun violence?

Because one of those is far more wider reaching than the other... the problem is that all the facts indicate a problem no one wants to talk about.

Is it possible to prove that someone who has sought out and received mental health help has decided not to kill people? How do we go about proving that? Is it possible to to prove that a patient getting on the right health care got proper meds and then didn't kill his family and neighbors? How do we go about proving that?

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Nah. I'm gonna drink. Thanks though.

Way ahead of ya... let me know if you change your mind, though.

What ya drinkin?

Irish whiskey brosephus

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

So is our aim to stop the statistical anomaly that is "mass shootings" or is our aim to stop gun violence?

Because one of those is far more wider reaching than the other... the problem is that all the facts indicate a problem no one wants to talk about.

Is it possible to prove that someone who has sought out and received mental health help has decided not to kill people? How do we go about proving that? Is it possible to to prove that a patient getting on the right health care got proper meds and then didn't kill his family and neighbors? How do we go about proving that?

That's my question and why I'm not so sure we'll get very far there. Perhaps changing the culture around how we deal with mental health will pay dividends down the road but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face it would have an impact right now.

I see it as an inevitable conclusion. The aim is not to solve the mental health crisis, it is to ban guns. That is the end game. This game will continue regardless if you abolish the military and put all of the money that went there into mental health.

That's why there's not a lot of talk about that and more around tightening controls from legal gun owners without mental health issues. There's no genuine interest in solving mental health... it's a proxy battle in the war against rights.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Way ahead of ya... let me know if you change your mind, though.

What ya drinkin?

Irish whiskey brosephus

Noice. I went through an Irish whiskey phase where I tried anything I could get my hands on. I preferred Bushmill's to Jameson. What Irish whisky are you enjoying?

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Irish whiskey brosephus

Noice. I went through an Irish whiskey phase where I tried anything I could get my hands on. I preferred Bushmill's to Jameson. What Irish whisky are you enjoying?

Teelings

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Noice. I went through an Irish whiskey phase where I tried anything I could get my hands on. I preferred Bushmill's to Jameson. What Irish whisky are you enjoying?

Teelings

Okay, so you're drinking good stuff. I always just tried whatever Meijer put on their shelves that said "Distilled in Ireland".

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:


Is it possible to prove that someone who has sought out and received mental health help has decided not to kill people? How do we go about proving that? Is it possible to to prove that a patient getting on the right health care got proper meds and then didn't kill his family and neighbors? How do we go about proving that?

That's my question and why I'm not so sure we'll get very far there. Perhaps changing the culture around how we deal with mental health will pay dividends down the road but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face it would have an impact right now.

I see it as an inevitable conclusion. The aim is not to solve the mental health crisis, it is to ban guns. That is the end game. This game will continue regardless if you abolish the military and put all of the money that went there into mental health.

That's why there's not a lot of talk about that and more around tightening controls from legal gun owners without mental health issues. There's no genuine interest in solving mental health... it's a proxy battle in the war against rights.

'I understand, I'm just one of the silent majority that wishes we'd all do the right fucking thing....... for once.

I'd call it mid-shelf. It's about 35 a fifth.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That's my question and why I'm not so sure we'll get very far there. Perhaps changing the culture around how we deal with mental health will pay dividends down the road but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face it would have an impact right now.

I see it as an inevitable conclusion. The aim is not to solve the mental health crisis, it is to ban guns. That is the end game. This game will continue regardless if you abolish the military and put all of the money that went there into mental health.

That's why there's not a lot of talk about that and more around tightening controls from legal gun owners without mental health issues. There's no genuine interest in solving mental health... it's a proxy battle in the war against rights.

'I understand, I'm just one of the silent majority that wishes we'd all do the right fucking thing....... for once.

If we could just figure that out and agree to it...

Rocinante wrote:I'd call it mid-shelf. It's about 35 a fifth.

Do you like Irish whisky better than Tennessee whiskey or bourbon?