Gun Control ?

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

That's just evolution. 

Take the manly man of the 60's and place him in todays corporate environment which the vast majority of us are forced to operate in and he would be just as lost as todays IT guy would be skinning a raccoon. 

 

I skinned a rabbit once. Does that count?

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

I skinned a rabbit once. Does that count?

Me too more than once, weirdly I'm just as comfortable (or uncomfortable depending on the day)  doing that as I am in the boardroom.

I often feel like I'm the missing link stuck between the digital and analog ages. 

[+DieChecker]

18 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Imagine if you were a flat-earther and you said this ^ to a round-earther. See how ridiculous that sounds given the proper context? The same applies here.

My refusal to accept your delusional BS has nothing to do with me being 'unable to put myself in other's boots', or my inability to see alternative points of view. It has to do with the fact that I actually care about what's factually correct, whereas others (like yourself) continue to perpetuate a proven lie. Yes, I am unable to see the flat-earth theory as being the least bit correct, because I know damn well that it isn't. I can give you a million and one reasons as to why it isn't right, and even more reasons as to why it is flat-out wrong. The same applies to the issue of gun control. I know damn well that more guns = more gun violence and that stricter gun control laws will for the most part solve this mass-shooting problem here in America, because all of the statistics bear it out. I have presented said statistics from numerous sources again and again, over and over, and it does no good. You people continue to believe whatever the F you want to believe regardless of whatever objectively verified scientific facts and data is presented to you. You don't care about facts, you only care about whatever political ideologies you already have, and how best to perpetuate them in spite of the evidence.

If you want to call me 'closed-minded' or 'unable to see other points of view' for refusing to acknowledge that 2+2 could ever possibly equal anything other then 4, then so be it. I am closed-minded to any possible alternative to already scientifically and statistically objectively verified facts.

If you expect me to ever consider 'your personal opinion' on the matter to be anything more than just straight-up delusional, then I'm sorry, but that just simply will never happen. If you truly believe that more guns and less gun control laws will lead to less mass-shootings, or that lax gun control laws are an irrelevant factor in regards to mass shootings in America in spite of all the data overwhelmingly proving otherwise, then you are just simply delusional. It's as simple as that.

Well, I am afraid then that you still have some learning to do. "...all of the statistics bear it out." is not true. There have been a number of experiments (local laws) here in the US, with almost complete bans on guns, such as in Chicago, and Washington DC, and those laws, in some statistical based studies, actually made things WORSE. Guns were banned, and MORE people died. This is fact. 

I do agree though that there is some point where we can go that would result in the lowest possible numbers of deaths. And I'd agree that we're not there yet. I'd also suggest that the examples used, of Happiest Nations in the world, would point to other factors being involved other then just guns. That culture, and whether it is degrading/degenerating, or not, has a large part of the pie.

The problem with believing facts and data is that it is often presented with a agenda in mind, and with a big spoon of bias. Can you say that the data you presented is free of your own bias. Did you specifically google, and research, that data to support your own opinions? There's nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend you are impartial and sitting tall on a high horse. 

The problem with the data you have presented is that I've seen data that mitigates yours, and so I've tried to observe all the data and come to a conclusion, where as it seems you came with a conclusion and then searched for data.

Edited March 24, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Me too more than once, weirdly I'm just as comfortable (or uncomfortable depending on the day)  doing that as I am in the boardroom.

I often feel like I'm the missing link stuck between the digital and analog ages. 

I'm somewhere between chopping firewood and playing minecraft.

[Paranormal Panther]

12 hours ago, Setton said:

The fact that you labelled one as irrelevant to your point doesn't make it less so. 

Then you will have absolutely no trouble doing the same as I did. 

Copy the part of the JAMA study that backs up your point. 

The predictable crap of actually reading your sources and calling you out on misrepresentation and fabrication? Glad I'm predictable in that.  

Please do. It would be a novelty. 

Although the fact that you admit you're just googling these studies is interesting when you made the assertion days ago. 

Perhaps make sure what you're posting is supported by evidence before posting it next time? 

Or just fly off the handle on a rant when someone calls you out. Either way. 

You make no sense. It's a common pattern with you. I repeatedly see it in your nonsensical replies to me and other posters. It's not political bias on my part when I say this. I could make a list of articulate and intelligent posters, on the Left, on this forum. You just don't happen to be one of them. You engage in needless conflicts with people, and you pat yourself on the back after some perceived "win" on your part. Your sense of intellectual superiority is laughable at best, and objective individuals see it for what it is.

I will make this simple for you. I won't engage in further ridiculous "debates", in which you reply with gobbledygook in an attempt at a "win", after I type one last post on the subject. I made two specific claims, and I will post links and quotes that back them. You probably will write the usual gibberish to take the attention off of my two main claims, but there will be no forthcoming responses from me.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

You make no sense. It's a common pattern with you. I repeatedly see it in your nonsensical replies to me and other posters. It's not political bias on my part when I say this. I could make a list of articulate and intelligent posters, on the Left, on this forum. You just don't happen to be one of them. You engage in needless conflicts with people, and you pat yourself on the back after some perceived "win" on your part. Your sense of intellectual superiority is laughable at best, and objective individuals see it for what it is.

I will make this simple for you. I won't engage in further ridiculous "debates", in which you reply with gobbledygook in an attempt at a "win", after I type one last post on the subject. I made two specific claims, and I will post links and quotes that back them. You probably will write the usual gibberish to take the attention off of my two main claims, but there will be no forthcoming responses from me.

It's makes no sense to ask someone to support their claims? That should be the very minimum expected in a debate. To call someone out when they fail (or worse pretend) to do this is far from a pointless conflict. It's stopping you from lying to people who might not have time to read the link and take you at your dishonest word. 

Let me keep it very simple for you:

Quote

Copy the part of the JAMA study that backs up your point

I'll even make that easier for you. Post and quote any scientific study to support your claim about testosterone. 

If you're so sure that's true, you really shouldn't find it this difficult. I'm literally just asking you to provide something to back up your claim. Again, the very minimum requirement for any debate. 

You have said you'll do exactly this:

Quote

I made two specific claims, and I will post links and quotes that back them

Just waiting for you to actually follow through. If you don't want to debate after, that's fine. But support your claim with something or withdraw it. 

[Paranormal Panther]

22 hours ago, Setton said:

It's makes no sense to ask someone to support their claims? That should be the very minimum expected in a debate. To call someone out when they fail (or worse pretend) to do this is far from a pointless conflict. It's stopping you from lying to people who might not have time to read the link and take you at your dishonest word. 

Let me keep it very simple for you:

I'll even make that easier for you. Post and quote any scientific study to support your claim about testosterone. 

If you're so sure that's true, you really shouldn't find it this difficult. I'm literally just asking you to provide something to back up your claim. Again, the very minimum requirement for any debate. 

You have said you'll do exactly this:

Just waiting for you to actually follow through. If you don't want to debate after, that's fine. But support your claim with something or withdraw it. 

Claim: There is a decline in grip strength. Quote: "The grip strength of a sample of college men had declined significantly between 1985 and 2016." Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/male-physical-decline-masculinity-threatened/

Claim: There is a decline in testosterone levels. Quote: "The more recently born Finnish men have lower testosterone levels than their earlier born peers." Source: http://www.eje-online.org/content/168/2/227.long 

There it is. You can take it or leave it.

 

[Hankenhunter]

7 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Claim: There is a decline in grip strength. Quote: "The grip strength of a sample of college men had declined significantly between 1985 and 2016." Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/male-physical-decline-masculinity-threatened/

Claim: There is a decline in testosterone levels. Quote: "The more recently born Finnish men have lower testosterone levels than their earlier born peers." Source: http://www.eje-online.org/content/168/2/227.long 

There it is. You can take it or leave it.

 

Your first link is in opinion piece by someone longing for his glory days and complaining about kids these days. Worthless. The second is a gem. It is an actual scientific study with no mention of grip strength. If you actually read the study you might have caught the parts about discussing obesity and enviromental factors as cause for the lowered testosterone levels over time. At the very end is also a disclaimer saying they don't know the cause. Again worthless. So, I'd leave it. Nice try, come again. 

Hank

Edited March 26, 2018 by Hankenhunter

[Setton]

8 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Claim: There is a decline in testosterone levels. Quote: "The more recently born Finnish men have lower testosterone levels than their earlier born peers." Source: http://www.eje-online.org/content/168/2/227.long 

There it is. You can take it or leave it.

I think some kind of fanfare is in order.

You have at last provided evidence for a claim. A week after making it. 

Not the claim you originally made but it is something. 

Here is your original claim:

On 20/03/2018 at 11:29 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

I do know that Millennial men have lower testosterone levels

The study you've cited does not include millennials, with the the youngest generation in it being born in the 70s. 

Also, it is important when using geographically restricted studies not to extrapolate inappropriately. 

Here is the conclusion you can make from the study you cite:

"Younger generations have lower testosterone than older generations at the same age for Finnish men born between the 1910s and 1970s."

The underlined parts are absolutely essential if you are providing a conclusion out of the context of the methodology. 

This study provides limited support for your claim but is insufficient on it's own to make that claim as a statement of fact. 

I know you've said you won't reply any more and that's up to you. But this is how scientific debate happens. You make a claim, you support it, others question your evidence, you explain why you think you can extrapolate, others question that, and so on. 

It would be great if you were willing to take part in the whole process. 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Setton

[Hankenhunter]

Here is is an example of Republican 2nd ammendment maturity. SMH. Can't argue your point? Let's just use slander and photo shop against a child.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-footage-parkland-survivor-emma-103022875.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

You guys going to defend this?

Hank

Edited March 26, 2018 by Hankenhunter

[Kismit]

10 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Here is is an example of Republican 2nd ammendment maturity. SMH. Can't argue your point? Let's just use slander and photo shop against a child.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-footage-parkland-survivor-emma-103022875.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

You guys going to defend this?

Hank

I'm not sure this is forwarding the discussion. 

Allthoigh it is kind of funny that some middle aged people thought they could beat the youth at technology.

 

 

[Gunn]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Here is is an example of Republican 2nd ammendment maturity. SMH. Can't argue your point? Let's just use slander and photo shop.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-footage-parkland-survivor-emma-103022875.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

You guys going to defend this?

Hank

Hell I just wish both sides would stop these propaganda against propaganda tactics. It's getting silly and old and gets us nowhere in the gun debate, time after time. And now after this, this poor girl just got setup and is probably going to be harassed.

[SHaYap]

The discussion has been spiraling towards something not unlike the Great Pepsi versus Coca Cola Blindfold Challenge tailspin and isn't showing any signs of a burp ...

~

[Socio]

On 2/20/2018 at 3:48 PM, docyabut2 said:

More kids have killed more kids since after the 70`s.Gun control will not stop the kids from killing, they still can find guns, or weapons. Its a mental problem not a gun problem. Trump`s right its more of a mental problem and a pole 67% people agreed.

This might not be said, but my guess  its a abortion mentality. Kids feel people has the right to kill babies. Government should ban the laws of abortion. And  the Ten Commandments should be back into the courts, and schools of do not kill for no reason,  telling  kids they`ll go to burning hell forever.

   So guys what is the reason for all this has been happening since after the 70`s when abortion started to be legal,  so tell me of another reason.  I am a women and know women are going real mad for all my suggestions.

It actually started in the 60's with the great society legislation's, the implementation of the welfare system and the start of the Progressive Lefts systematic deterioration of society for political gain.

The welfare system led to the destruction of the family structure where government dad started replacing real dad:

Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a ‘traditional’ family

Quote

Fewer than half (46%) of U.S. kids younger than 18 years of age are living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage. This is a marked change from 1960, when 73% of children fit this description, and 1980, when 61% did, according to a Pew Research Center analysis

This gave rise to children growing up with no structure, no discipline and no real sense of right from wrong instilled in them and then having kids themselves. These kids they are temperamental, prone to lashing out, and criminal behavior, who are starving for attention and consolation making them easily swayed by the power suggestion. They have been convinced that nothing is ever their fault and there is always someone else to blame for their failures.

Then in 1979 Carter gave us the United States Department of Education a mechanism through which curriculum for all public schools could be controlled and now is being use in what is commonly known as indoctrination where so much of our history and civics is being spun or completely omitted to maintain a narrative that children today are being taught an alternate reality.

Now we are on our 3rd and 4th generation of single parent undisciplined indoctrinated kids, who always get a trophy, can't be punished (See Obama's PROMISE program), are never to blame, who are segregated into racial, gender, and sexual orientation groups at earlier and earlier ages so they are easier to control, and are way over medicated to cope with it all.   

This is all because their parent never learn how to be a parent because their parent never learned how to be one themselves.

What is going today can only be laid at the Progressive Liberals feet no where else. 

Think I am wrong?

Then what is the only entity gains from  this on going degradation of society and the tragedies that come from it?

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Socio

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Socio said:

Then what is the only entity gains from from this degradation of society and the tragedies that come from it?

 

 

[Hankenhunter]

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

 

 

The greatest and longest lasting scam in history. Millions of rubes fleeced. History will not look kindly on this.

Hank

[SHaYap]

I bet Jesus never got to see a bloody dime too ... or penny either ...

~

[aztek]

Loesch: The Left Wants 'Gun Confiscation,' But They Won't Come Out and Say It

Dana Loesch believes the left is not being honest about the true goal of the push for more gun control laws.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this week that young demonstrators who marched in favor of gun control last weekend "should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

Loesch said anti-gun activists share this view and some talk about "mandatory buyback" programs, which she sees as a "word salad for [gun] confiscation."

She added that calls for a ban on the AR-15 are really an effort to ban all semiautomatic weapons, while anti-gun protesters insist they are not in favor of "taking" anyone's guns away.

"We're finally starting to see anti-gun advocates be honest about where they are on this issue. ... That's exactly what they want, they just stop short of saying it because they know it doesn't poll well," she said.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/29/dana-loesch-left-wants-gun-confiscation-they-wont-come-out-and-say-it

[+DieChecker]

On 3/26/2018 at 3:31 PM, Hankenhunter said:

Here is is an example of Republican 2nd ammendment maturity. SMH. Can't argue your point? Let's just use slander and photo shop against a child.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-footage-parkland-survivor-emma-103022875.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

You guys going to defend this?

Hank

I don't think anyone can defend that photoshop job. However, if even a young person puts themself forward into the Public Discussion, they will have to understand that some people are going to throw rotten fruit.

[Hankenhunter]

Here's NRA spokesman, *snip*Ted Nugent with his take on the kids protesting the school shootings.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-nugent-evidence-is-irrefutable-the-parkland-student-activists-have-no-soul/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Hank

[Kismit]

On 3/30/2018 at 4:01 AM, aztek said:

Loesch: The Left Wants 'Gun Confiscation,' But They Won't Come Out and Say It

Dana Loesch believes the left is not being honest about the true goal of the push for more gun control laws.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this week that young demonstrators who marched in favor of gun control last weekend "should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

Loesch said anti-gun activists share this view and some talk about "mandatory buyback" programs, which she sees as a "word salad for [gun] confiscation."

She added that calls for a ban on the AR-15 are really an effort to ban all semiautomatic weapons, while anti-gun protesters insist they are not in favor of "taking" anyone's guns away.

"We're finally starting to see anti-gun advocates be honest about where they are on this issue. ... That's exactly what they want, they just stop short of saying it because they know it doesn't poll well," she said.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/29/dana-loesch-left-wants-gun-confiscation-they-wont-come-out-and-say-it

There is also the very real possibility that  the left isn't claiming they want to confiscate guns because that is not what they want to do. 

There is also the fact that gun controls are not partisan issues. The fix NICS bill mentioned by Acidhead earlier is one of the changes gun control activists (both Democratic and Republican)are asking for.

This is Dana Loesch doing what the NRA pays her $400,000 + p/a to do. Author up bogey men to increase gun sales for manufacturers. 

Dividing the nation into liberals =bad guys and Conservatives =good guys. When in reality nobody is made either good or bad because of thier political standings and every belief has it's necisary part to play.

But people like Dana Loesch an Mr LaPierre make money from gun sales, mostly by making you fear that somone wants to take them away from you. So gun sales increase either for protection or collection. 

There are other things they do, but this one is the most commonly used tool of Dana Loech's trade.

[GlitterRose]

I don't really like this "leftist/conservative" thing. 

There are actually dems who own guns, believe it or not.

And I empathize with the kids, but it is also kinda scary to me how guns are suddenly disappearing from stores where they used to be sold.

There's no question that they should firm up the background checks, but I'm looking around and I'm starting to go...hmm...

there's something happening here.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Here's NRA spokesman, *snip*Ted Nugent with his take on the kids protesting the school shootings.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-nugent-evidence-is-irrefutable-the-parkland-student-activists-have-no-soul/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

Hank

Yeah, that is sad. Wonder if Pags' show will be hit like Ingram's was? Bringing it on themselves, if you ask me. Ingram clearly was just bullying that kid.

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

I don't really like this "leftist/conservative" thing. 

There are actually dems who own guns, believe it or not.

And I empathize with the kids, but it is also kinda scary to me how guns are suddenly disappearing from stores where they used to be sold.

There's no question that they should firm up the background checks, but I'm looking around and I'm starting to go...hmm...

there's something happening here.

From what I've read gun sales are done since Trump won the election. I guess the militias feel they don't need more guns anymore? Ironically, feeling guns are not going to be restricted/banned means less guns bought, which means less profit for gun manufacturers, which means less guns to be sold... Which ironically means less guns on the streets....

[GlitterRose]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

From what I've read gun sales are done since Trump won the election. I guess the militias feel they don't need more guns anymore? Ironically, feeling guns are not going to be restricted/banned means less guns bought, which means less profit for gun manufacturers, which means less guns to be sold... Which ironically means less guns on the streets....

But that's not what happened. 

Stores stopped selling guns because of the current social climate.

They're feeling pressured not to. 

And this happened without any laws being passed.