Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
BANG!
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 - Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shoot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He commit suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed 6 people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed 2 people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 - Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed 3 people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing 3 girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing 2 students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. 15 people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed 6 people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed 2 people before PE teacher, Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed 7 people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed 1 person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually commit suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed 8 people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. 13 people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. 3 students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

12,587 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/william-norman-grigg/armed-mun danes/

    “But registration poses no danger to law abiding citizens”Right….and I’ve got some beachfront property for sale in New Mexico as well

  2. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Just one of MANY recent examples that humans are inherently impulsive, arrogant, volatile and stupid. Why we keep making it easier to put guns within constant reach of such creatures is beyond my understanding. Countless examples of pissing matches being settled permanently by bullets… All in the name of FREEEDOMMM

    http://tbo.com/pasco-county/bond-hearing-resumes-in-pasco-theater -shooting-case-20140207/

    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      And many multiples more of countless laws vilified by the left as a return to the Wild West which never materialized…

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        It’s unfortunate that the Wild West never returned, because it had a murder rate far below places like Chicago has today. A hundred-odd years ago America had an _overall_ homicide rate (including, but not limited to, firearms homicides) of little over 1 per 100,000 people per year. This violent “Wild West” myth is yet another deception by the left.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          It’s unfortunate that the Wild West never returned, because it had a murder rate far below places like Chicago has today. A hundred-odd years ago America had an _overall_ homicide rate (including, but not limited to, firearms homicides) of little over 1 per 100,000 people per year. This violent “Wild West” myth is yet another deception by the left.

          the wild west-a myth perpetuated by the Hollywood left-you know those guys who hate guns,but make tons of money glorifying violence with guns?

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Yeah, all they know is that there was actual wilderness, and a shindig at the OK corral that was less bloody than a single fiat-disarmed mall shooting.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Maybe it’s because they had more gun control back then?

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Oh man, I thought you were a troll all this time, I didn’t realize you were actually just a comedy act.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma.

              Often, when you entered a town, you would check your guns in and receive a token.

              And here are laws from our founding era:

              – Regulation of gun powder, including how much you could keep at home.
              – Door to door surveys to see who had guns and what conditions they were in.
              – Mandatory musters where citizens were expected to show up with their arms (including private ones) to have them inspected and registered. If you didn’t show up or had insufficient arms/ammo, you were fined.
              – Defined legal self defense more narrowly than we do today
              – Many free blacks couldn’t own guns
              – Anyone who didn’t support the war had all firearms confiscated and were barred from even borrowing or using other firearms belonging to friends or family (how would they be able to defend themselves against criminals or the government? Self defense taken away)
              – Concealed carry was banned in many states, starting with the South.

              Some places like MA banned loaded guns from most places in the city.

              “A 1783 Massachusetts statute declared that “the depositing of loaded Arms in the Houses of Town of Boston, is dangerous” and provided for fine and forfeiture for anyone keeping a loaded firearm in “any Dwelling-House, Stable, barn, Out-house, Ware-house, Store, Shop, or other Building”

              Source: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&con text=flr

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                …And that compares to HOW many gun laws today, do you think?
                Spoiler: I actually own this book, so give it a REAL guess, not just something you googled from CNSnews, or something.
                http://www.gunlaws.com/GLOA_Contents.htm
                Korwin is also cited here, stating that it’s not even about the number anymore, and if I had to guess, that’s probably because a lot of those keep overlapping.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  It’s not about the number of gun laws, it’s about the severity. Try and use your head. If there were 2 laws, one that banned all guns but handguns, another that banned all conceal carry. Would that be better or worse than the amount of gun laws we have today?

                  Your book does nothing to argue against the gun laws I have posted above.

                  Conceal carry banned in many states. Restrictions on how much ammo you could have at home. Door to door gun registration. Bans on keeping loaded guns in most buildings in certain states.

                  Sorry, can’t deny the past no matter how hard you try.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    I have no need to deny the past. But having a thousand different gun laws is worse than only having two on the grounds that you’re punished for NOT KNOWING all the laws, if you violate one, unintentionally. Like living within 1000 feet of a place that later gets designated as a “school”, or other ‘gun-free zone’, where you are then capable of being an insta-felon without changing a routine that you’ve conducted for years. And yes: That IS an example of a real gun law on the books today.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      There you have it. Stupidity at it’s finest. You would rather have a ban on all firearms except handguns and a ban on conceal carry instead of the laws we have today.

                      Wow, I didn’t realize you were so anti-gun!

                      And then your reasoning is that it’s better than being punished for laws that you aren’t aware of, and then you list the law. So you are aware of it. And that is a rather basic law that would either get covered in your course/training to obtain a conceal carry permit, or something that you should have looked up if you did the most basic search of information on conceal carrying.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “There you have it. Stupidity at it’s finest. You would rather have a ban on all firearms except handguns and a ban on conceal carry instead of the laws we have today.”

                      No, what I’d RATHER is not being threatened with the rape-cage for owning property that can help me eliminate the gap in physical power between me and career criminals, but of course offering THAT wouldn’t fit your agenda.

                      “Wow, I didn’t realize you were so anti-gun!”

                      I wonder why not? Maybe you should think about that for a minute.

                      “And then your reasoning is that it’s better than being punished for laws that you aren’t aware of, and then you list the law. So you are aware of it. And that is a rather basic law that would either get covered in your course/training to obtain a conceal carry permit, or something that you should have looked up if you did the most basic search of information on conceal carrying.””

                      Oh, how many laws did I list? Do you know that they’re correct, either for where you live, or where I live? I happen to live in Arizona, where concealed carry is a right, not subject to permitting and government oversight. Even a NON-basic search of information on concealed carrying will not explain to you ALL of the laws you are subject to, hence why Alan Korwin can make a comfortable living SELLING a book for multiple State laws regarding lawful firearms ownership and carry, and Federal laws, as well. If it were easy to find, he’d be a pauper.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Care to cite the laws that have been repealed? Oh, wait, you’re not very good at citing laws.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        And many multiples more of countless laws vilified by the left as a return to the Wild West which never materialized…

        such as the drop in homicides here in WI once CCW and Castle Doctrine were enacted?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        If Reese didn’t have that gun in the theatre nobody would be dead.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          And if there were pots of gold at the end of rainbows, nobody would be poor. The fact is there are evil people in the world. Either you have a response to those people, or you don’t.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          And what stopped him? Words on paper, or men with guns?

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            What stopped him? Nothing stopped him. That us why Oulsen is dead.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              So laws didn’t stop him, in fact, they allowed him to be armed, even if nobody else could be. Ex-cop, and all. But what STOPPED him? He’s in jail, denied bail. Do you think they waved the law at him and shooed him into the jail, or do you think armed men showed up and took him there?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                “And what stopped him?”

                Nothing stopped him. He shot a person then stopped himself.

                In case you weren’t aware, laws can’t physically stop people. And no, laws didn’t “prevent” others from being armed either. Like you said, did “Words on paper” stop being from carrying their weapons in the theater?

                Wait, laws against murder don’t stop people from murdering each other? Repeal them at once!

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              No answer to this? What got the shooter to jail? Did they shoo him in with kindness?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Uh, he didn’t resist arrest. He sat down and waited for the cops.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  Right, and that wasn’t at all motivated by him knowing he wasn’t going to escape, no matter what… Primarily because, right! He was a cop! He already knew exactly how likely it was that he’d just be able to skip off on a murder and never be found. This was just a ploy for “temporary insanity” and bargaining for being cooperative. Not that any of that helps the NON-state privileged dead guy and his family.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “Either you have a response to those people, or you don’t.”

          And what would your response be? Apologize to the guy that was shot from behind and is now dead.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            *I’M* not gonna apologize, I didn’t shoot him.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            And thus far you’ve gotten the story even wronger than most press accounts. His name was REEVES, and he was shot in the chest, not from behind.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              I didn’t say where he was shot. I said where he was shot from.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Yes, and you were wrong twice. You said the back. He was shot from the front, thus how his wife was able to put her hand between his chest and the gun.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Reeves was the shooter. You have a hard time with facts and staying on subject.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                And you said Reese. YOU have the hard time with facts, and if you don’t want us off on tangents, stop being wrong.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  And you said Reeves was shot. He wasn’t

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    I didn’t, actually… I simply put a comma between my two independent points, where apparently you needed me to use a whole new paragraph. You got a guy’s name wrong, and you got the shooting location wrong. I never said that the name belonged to the victim, you just didn’t follow the pronouns.

                    It’s ok, if you just admit you screwed this up, we can get back on a topic you like.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      ” His name was REEVES, and he was shot in the chest, not from behind.”

                      http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/020204whencommabfand.htm

                      Who is “he” referring to in this sentence?

                      Reeves was behind and above Oulson.

                      You know, even if Oulson had a gun he would have still been taken by surprise and still be dead. Oulson was shot by a guy above and behind.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You know, even if Oulson had a gun he would have still been taken by surprise and still be dead. Oulson was shot by a guy above and behind.”

                      Yeah, even when professional soldiers are on a battlefield with body armor and automatic weaponry they still sometimes die. Does that mean that the thing you want to change is that they should be disarmed, and that would fix it?

                      By the way, explain how he was shot in the chest from behind?

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Reeves was with his wife and sat behind Oulson, 43, and his wife, authorities said. Oulson was using his cell phone during the previews before the film and Reeves told him to put it away, according to police and witnesses.

  3. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    Mark:

    I have invented a device that will make all guns go into another dimension. It will be send out s super dooper secrete vibration that when it hits a tube that contains explosive material, transmits that tube to the dimenison of duffus, so no one will have guns. Unless they are, of course, not loaded. So this device will have to run all the time. And we need a 10 MW generator to power it.

    and I need 10 million to build a prototype. I believe that will address the problem as you see it.

    The alternative, of course, is to identify all members of the group “We” that makes it easier for stupid people to get guns, and kill them. Once there are no WE, then there will be no guns, unless, of course some person who is not a member of We, actually builds one. So I guess we are stuck with my duffus dimension device. Maybe you could set up a fundraiser on the internet to raise that money. I will give you 1/2. I am sure that there are many people with your frame of mind that would contribute to such a cause. And I will give you 1/2. Heck, you can even keep the money and send me 1/2 so I can build my prototype/

    I can not guarantee success beyond stating that it is as likely to succeed as any similar concept conceived by people like you.

  4. Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

    Sure — give it your bets shot. Before trying, you should know that I can stop speeding bullets. :-)

    • Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group?
      There’s a lot of folks that I hink would really appreciate ylur
      content. Please let me know. Many thanks

  5. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    “I came here for an argument,I paid for it,and I fully expect it”

    No, you didn’t.

  6. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:
    February 9, 2014 at 11:44 pm

    ***Yeah,that one.I just caught that movie about those three teenage girls in Florida who savagely beat a classmate,until she had permanent hearing and vision loss,just to have a clip to post on youtube.They were all facing life sentences,yet the longest sentence handed down was 15 days in County,plus probation.Gee,that’ll really deter others….***

    Didn’t they say they’re “sorry”?

  7. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    ww.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/09/Mark-Kelly-Testifies-I n-Favor-Of-Gun-Control-Then-Goes-Shooting

    not being from Mother Jones,the Daily Kos,Rachel Maddow or the NY Slimes,Markbabs will claim this is’nt “credible”

  8. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Let’s not forget that having a disarmed populace allows governments to take more risks by giving the general public a false sense of safety: no guns, nothing to worry about. Right?”

    I am not advocating disarmament despite continued misrepresentation. One could be assured of not being assaulted or murdered with a gun if there were no guns. Children wouldn’t accidentally fire them with devastating results. Suicidal people would often reconsider without guns. You’re right about that but we’d still have idiot right wingers to worry about so not having guns isn’t a panacea.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Mark The Troll writes: “I am not advocating disarmament despite continued misrepresentation.”

      First, I am not saying that you did, so that is a straw man. However, by advocating universal registration through the known-abusable background/registration check system, you are, contrary to any protestations, advocating for a policy that is a necessary precursor to confiscation, and which has routinely been used for confiscations in the past, and today, in California and a few other states. So, even as you deny the desire to disarm the public, you not only stand silently by while confiscations pick up in some places, you also seek to institute measures that will facilitate confiscations everywhere.

      “One could be assured of not being assaulted or murdered with a gun if there were no guns.”

      … also contrary to your above protestations, only someone who thought such a goal would be preferable to what we have now would raise this comparison. Somewhere inside you, you really want guns to all just go away or you wouldn’t say things like that. So, in addition to what I wrote above, it appears that you really do want guns to go away, and I submit that motive underlies your other near-term goals.

      Furthermore: you can’t be assured of not being assaulted or murdered without a gun, if there were no guns, and indeed if the ‘more guns, less crime’ proposition were true, you could be more likely to be assaulted or murdered in a land with zero guns than in America today. Of course, you often dismiss non-gun assaults and murders as irrelevant, a ‘red herring,’ because your concern is curiously exclusively ‘gun violence’, waving away hundreds of millions of democide deaths in disarmed lands as off-topic.

      So, the key question here seems to be whether ‘more guns, less crime’ is true. How’s that comparison of crime rates of European-Americans in America, with European-Europeans in Germany coming along? You have any numbers to show us? No? Why not? What gives? You claim to be interested in this topic, and indeed you chide me and others for bringing up red herrings. So, how about it? How come you have suddenly fallen silent on the question? This is your opportunity to deliver a crushing blow! Why don’t you deliver it? Is anything wrong?

      “Children wouldn’t accidentally fire them with devastating results.”

      Nor would they, or anyone else, *ever* fire them with beneficial results, if they didn’t exist. A cost-benefit analysis isn’t done by excluding all the benefits, and looking at what remains. Unless you’re irredeemably dishonest, that is. Which, oh damn, seems to be the case for you.

      “Suicidal people would often reconsider without guns.”

      Since you like to bring up Japan, I’ll mention for the record that Japan has nearly zero civilian gun ownership, and *three times* the overall suicide rate of America, i.e. including firearms suicides and all other causes combined. Three times the rate. So Japan’s suicide rate exceeds America’s overall guns deaths by a wide margin, including, on the American side, firearms suicides, accidents including children, and firearms homicide, justified and criminal.

      “You’re right about that but we’d still have idiot right wingers to worry about so not having guns isn’t a panacea.”

      Straw man, right wingers don’t argue that guns are a panacea. Which, however, leaves the left wing idiots who are not only ignorant but also dishonest. Such as yourself.

      So, how about that comparison of Europeans here vs. Germany? Let’s hear it. Stop ducking that question. After all, you brought up the comparison to Germany. Let’s have at it.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Nicely written Bruce. I actually empathize with Mark’s attitude in a way. Here in the Ozark backwoods people are shooting all the time. Many are drunks and low level intelligences. I do not trust them. So it would be nice to live in a society where guns did not exist, but that is fantasy. In our real world having weapons is the only long term protection we have for our freedoms. The socialist mentality is incapable of comprehending that government is the enemy free men fear the most. Mark seems to have at least socialist tendencies so I think the idea of lindivlidual responsibility is probably beyond him, at least when lit comes to weapons.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I was merely addressing you initial points. As usual you have to throw in other subjects and modifiers to dodge being called out on your statement.

        Well, let’s see, you mention Japan suicides. That’s nice. I get to use your “different society” thing on that right?

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Mark The Troll sez: “Well, let’s see, you mention Japan suicides. That’s nice. I get to use your “different society” thing on that right?”

          Not necessarily. I mentioned that *you* like to (illegitimately) make (non-apples-to-apples) different society comparisons, so, in order to indulge that preference of yours, I take the liberty of mentioning Japan’s suicide rates. Of course, that doesn’t mean such comparisons are valid, just that you like to make them.

          So, shall we assume that you are conceding any objection to the “more guns, less crime” argument? I’ve given you almost ten chances to post the apples-to-apples comparison of the crime rates of European-Americans in America, vs. European-Europeans in Germany, and you have NEVER responded.

          Do you concede? I’ll take your silence as a yes, and of course also a post of irrelevant information as a yes, that you do concede.

          Put up or shut up.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            For the record, my silence is never a concession.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Well, at least you’ve now responded, with a non-response. So, gonna make the comparison? Put up or shut up, big boy.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              You make an assertion, and you are unwilling to defend it. That amounts to a tacit retraction.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Kind of similar to the dialect argument you made about “brandishing”?

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  That’s funnier since YOU were the one pushing the “dialect” angle. And never did either admit, prove, or comprehend the part where brandishing is a crime, and ‘holding a gun’ is not… Kinda like how ‘murder’ is automatically a crime, but ‘homicide’ can be in self-defense.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “It’s quite amusing that something you find moronic, i.e. worthy of morons, nevertheless, baffles you and exceeds your ability to comprehend it.”

                And Markbabs wonders why the grown-ups won’t take him seriously

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “Not necessarily. I mentioned that *you* like to (illegitimately) make (non-apples-to-apples) different society comparisons, so, in order to indulge that preference of yours, I take the liberty of mentioning Japan’s suicide rates. Of course, that doesn’t mean such comparisons are valid, just that you like to make them.”

            So you criticize him for something, then you do the same thing (which is the definition of hypocrisy), and then you admit that the example you brought up isn’t a valid comparison. Truly fascinating how your mind works.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              I’ll make an analogy. That way everyone else will be able to understand my answer, except for you trolls.

              /begin encryption method /analogy

              “You know, I think your superstitious beliefs are silly. But, by the way, there’s a black cat that’s walking across your path, so you might want to throw salt over your shoulder. Or grab hold of that horseshoe over there. You seem to hold such beliefs, so there you go, even though I don’t believe in them at all. I’m just warning you of the cat because you seem to pay attention to such things.”

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Oh, now I completely understand! NOT

                The problem is that you aren’t “helping” him, like you try and illustrate in the 10000th false analogy you have made, you are trying to help yourself and your argument. All the while being two faced about it and making the argument while at the same time saying you disagree with the argument you made. Multiple personalities maybe? I’m not sure.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            And then you somehow try and blame Mark for the fact that you made that comparison, which you claim you disagree with and you claim is invalid. But you make the comparison anyway. And you blame Mark for you making this invalid comparison which you don’t believe in making.

            Too funny. What goes on in your head?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              I can’t resist. Here’s another analogy to mystify you, but it will mystify no one else. Just you.

              “I love Tabasco Sauce.”
              “Well I hate it.”
              “Say, I see there’s a bottle of it next to you, and I suppose you won’t be needing it.”
              “No, not at all.”
              “Could I have it, please?”
              “Sure thing, here you go.”
              “Thanks!”

              Is the person giving the Tabasco sauce hypocritical for giving it to someone else, even though he would never have it himself?

              (Do you, oh great master of the dictionary, know what hypocrisy means? By any chance?)

              These things are truly profound enigmas.

              Known only to the chosen ones.

              Chosen to ascend out of fourth grade.

              Many are called.

              Almost as many are chosen.

              Like, practically, *everybody* is chosen, actually.

              Except you.

              You are special.

              Yes, *that* kind of special.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                You said this:

                “Since you like to bring up Japan, I’ll mention for the record that Japan has nearly zero civilian gun ownership, and *three times* the overall suicide rate of America, i.e. including firearms suicides and all other causes combined. Three times the rate. So Japan’s suicide rate exceeds America’s overall guns deaths by a wide margin, including, on the American side, firearms suicides, accidents including children, and firearms homicide, justified and criminal.”

                You were making an argument. You invoked Japan and then said such comparisons were invalid as well as attacking Mark for making them, like the hypocrite you are.

                Shut up with all your noise and accept reality.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  I don’t have to like Tabasco sauce to pass it to someone else, I don’t have to be superstitious to think it worthwhile to mention a black cat to someone who is, and I don’t have to think that cultural influences are unimportant to mention to someone who does, that one particular gun-free land with a wildly different culture has a higher suicide rate than America’s combined firearms death rates of all kinds. It is not inconsistent, let alone hypocritical, to give someone something they like that you don’t like, to advise someone holding a belief that you lack of relevant information to that belief, or to offer an argument back to someone, that the someone finds persuasive that you do not.

                  Please re-check your understanding of what “hypocrisy” means. It’s between “except” and “oxymoron” in your dictionary. If you get to “percentage” or “wanting,” you’ve gone too far. Oh wait, those words might not be in your dictionary, because you evidently don’t know what they mean. My bad.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Oh, yes, how could I forget?

                  “Shut up with all your noise and accept reality.”

                  Your non-response after many hours could possibly indicate that you have been defeated again, or it could merely indicate that you still cannot comprehend the analogies and their application to my citing Japan’s suicide rates. So here’s another.

                  It is not hypocritical for an atheist, who is presently committing a sin, to tell the Christian committing the same sin, that Jesus considers the act a sin. Atheists, as a group, do not find appeals to the Bible persuasive. But Christians do, or at least theoretically. The atheist might, nevertheless, be acquainted with the teachings of the Bible, even if they are not accepted as true. So, once again, there is nothing hypocritical about a sinning atheist telling the Christian “Since you have accepted Jesus into your heart, I could mention that the act you are presently engaged in amounts to breaking one of the Ten Commandments, and is therefore properly viewed as a sin, and this is even true irrespective of the fact that I am performing a similar act.”

                  Hint: In order for the atheist to be a hypocrite, he must also have commanded, or at least advised, that other people should be Christian. If he has not done so, there is no hypocrisy. I have most certainly not advised that Mark or anyone else make cross-cultural comparisons “but be sure to pointedly ignore any and all cultural differences,” except, perhaps, sarcastically (because it is so obviously invalid) and maybe not even then.

                  “Shut up with all your noise and accept reality.” Or, as a start, you might consider learning what words mean.

                  Maybe there should be a background check on the First Amendment, that ensures you have the necessary training to safely and accurately employ high-capacity, fully automatic assault browsers that are able to post millions of words a minute to every corner of the globe, irrespective of the rightness or the correct word usage that can be thoughtlessly, or even maliciously, employed, without any background checks, waiting periods, mental health evaluations, posting capacity limitations or anything else. The Founding Fathers never intended such rapid-fire “speech” as the internet enables, they only meant for people to personally distribute handbills, on street corners, that they printed themselves with no technology newer than offset printing presses. Unless, of course, you pay a $200 tax for each post you make with the modern technology, or face violent felony charges with mandatory 10-year sentence (served consecutively) and/or $250,000 fine for each violation. How does that sound for an explicitly enumerated right to free speech? Sounds fair, right? I mean, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Again, look back at what you said. You can spam pages and pages of absolute bullshit that has no relevance to the topic, it won’t change what you said:

                    “Not necessarily. I mentioned that *you* like to (illegitimately) make (non-apples-to-apples) different society comparisons, so, in order to indulge that preference of yours, I take the liberty of mentioning Japan’s suicide rates. Of course, that doesn’t mean such comparisons are valid, just that you like to make them.”

                    And then you go ahead and make such a comparison. So obviously you like to as well. You are also stupid enough to make a comparison and at the same time say that it is invalid. And somehow, in that process, you still manage to blame mark of wrong doing. For the comparison you made. Which you claim is invalid.

                    Baffling.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What I said was “Since you like to bring up Japan, …”

                      Don’t worry, even if you are utterly baffled by the comparisons to Tabasco sauce, or superstition, or Christianity, every other person who ever reads them will probably understand exactly what I have written and why it is that (1) your assertions to the contrary, I am not hypocritical, and (2) that you don’t know what the term even means. Who knows? Maybe even Mark The Troll himself grasps the point, which is why he hasn’t responded in any substantive way since I have made the analogies.

                      If so, that would leave you all by yourself in not grasping the fifth-grade point that someone can give another something the other likes or accepts, even if the one doesn’t like it or accept it, without any hypocrisy or any other negative connotation or dishonesty or wrongness. In fact, I suspect that even toddlers can grasp the point, even if they, like you, don’t know what hypocrisy is.

                      Since you like My Little Pony, Babs the Troll, here’s a My Little Pony. You can keep it. It doesn’t do anything for me. (Maybe this example for 3-year-olds can reach you. Maybe it can’t.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Did you or did you not try and make the argument that:

                      “Japan’s suicide rate exceeds America’s overall guns deaths by a wide margin, including, on the American side, firearms suicides, accidents including children, and firearms homicide, justified and criminal.”

                      Did you or did you not say that such comparisons were invalid?

                      Did you or did you not criticize Mark for making such comparisons?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Asked and answered, Einstein. The answer is in the analogy. It’s obvious. Don’t worry your pretty little head about not grasping it; everyone else who ever reads this will know exactly what I’m talking about. Only you are unable to grasp it. Keep trying, you might get it some day. Maybe.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Here. I’ll help you.

                      Did you or did you not try and make the argument that:

                      “Japan’s suicide rate exceeds America’s overall guns deaths by a wide margin, including, on the American side, firearms suicides, accidents including children, and firearms homicide, justified and criminal.”

                      Yes, you did

                      Did you or did you not say that such comparisons were invalid? Yes, you did.

                      Did you or did you not criticize Mark for making such comparisons? Yes, you did.

                      And what do we call people who do the same thing that they criticize others for?

                      drum roll………

                      A h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Go ahead and dig a deeper hole, expanding the perception that you can’t grasp a simple concept.

                      Here. I’ll help you.

                      Did I or did I not say, “Here’s the Tabasco sauce for your burger?” Yes, I did.

                      Did I or did I not say that such food was inedible? Yes, I did.

                      Did I or did I not criticize Mark for eating such condiments? Yes, I did.

                      And what do we call people who give the same sauce to others that they would never eat themselves, and, indeed, criticize others for eating?

                      drum roll………

                      P-o-l-i-t-e!!

                      Don’t worry, you’ll NEVER understand. It’s beyond you. You might as well just give up.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … unless, perhaps, your mental limitations are so enormous that you can *only* comprehend examples that already fit within your pre-existing ideologies. Perhaps your cognitive abilities are so limited that examples or analogies that are beyond your group-think, you just can’t comprehend them at all.

                      So, I search for an example within the liberal group-think. Aha! Smoking is *bad*. Just like arguments comparing Japan to America. (Also bad.)

                      “I hate smoking! Never smoked a day in my life! Smoking is wrong, disgusting, unhealthful, and just plain rotten.”
                      “Well, I smoke.”
                      “You shouldn’t. It’s evil!”
                      “Well, I do. Actually, I just ran out, so I need to get another cigarette.”
                      “Well, *since you like to smoke* – here’s a cigarette, just for you. I happen to have one on me. But you shouldn’t smoke it, because smoking is horrible. Do you know what it does to you?”

                      Ok Babs The Troll: the guy who gave away the cigarette – is he a hypocrite? He said smoking was evil, that he’s never done it, and that no one should do it. But then he gives the other guy a smoke.

                      Two questions:
                      First: Is he a hypocrite?

                      Second: Can you connect the dots to your accusation that I’m a hypocrite for offering Mark an argument, “since he likes them” – even though they’re bad?

                      Third: Can you count to two?

                      Fourth: Do you realize that if you finally grasp this argument, you will confirm my hypothesis that you can only comprehend things that are within your allowable group-think?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Ok, so you’re saying when Mark makes international comparisons, he is wrong for doing so and the comparisons are invalid. But when you do the exact same thing, you are just being polite. Makes a lot of sense Brucey. You are just indulging him. Polite! HAhahahahaha

                      You do realize that all the analogies, all the responses you have given – they are all just excuses. You are trying to come up with reasons that will excuse you making an international comparison. The thing is, I don’t give a crap why you think it’s okay for you to do it. It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that you:

                      1. Criticize Mark for making international comparisons.
                      2. Call such comparisons invalid.
                      3. Make such comparisons yourself when you think they benefit your argument.

                      Those facts remain unchanged no matter what excuse you try and use. Tabasco, sinning, smoking. Absolutely meaningless. It’s funny though to watch you try and come up with excuses. You’re like a child who got caught and is coming up with truly moronic excuses and every grown up in the room is saying “yea yea” while they roll their eyes.

                      Let’s take a look at the excuses you have thrown out:

                      1. Mark likes to make such comparisons, so, somehow, that makes it OK for you to do the same. Even though you say they are wrong and invalid.

                      2. You are being polite (LOL)

                      3. You compare making arguments you call invalid to warning someone about a black cat.

                      4. You are “indulging” him.

                      So it’s okay to criticize someone for their argument, call it invalid, and then make the same argument with the excuse that it’s because “they like that kind of argument”? What sense does that make Brucey? Sounds awfully like you are trying to blame Mark for your hypocrisy.

                      Then we have gems like this paragraph. Look at all the rationalizing you got going there. All those excuses:

                      “It is not inconsistent, let alone hypocritical, to give someone something they like that you don’t like, to advise someone holding a belief that you lack of relevant information to that belief, or to offer an argument back to someone, that the someone finds persuasive that you do not.”

                      And yea, it also makes absolutely zero sense. You need to put together sentences that make sense. Try shorter ones, it might be easier for you. But hey, at least you admit you are offering arguments that you yourself don’t find persuasive. What goes on in your head Bruce? Do you have lots of voices in there?

                      So again, no matter what sad excuses you try and come up with, and they really are sad, you aren’t changing any of the facts that make you a giant, pathetic hypocrite.

                      But hey, I look forward to your next analogy/excuse. I think if you come up with the right one, it might change the past and erase the fact that you said international comparisons are invalid and then made one. Keep trying!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Why don’t you write a 6,000 word essay detailing all the different ways you fail to grasp the meaning and relevance of the analogies I have given you?

                      You could entitle it “The Many Ways Bruce Makes Arguments That Just Go Right Over My Head”

                      Because the more you write about the ways in which you can’t understand it, the more clearly your cognitive limitations appear to others.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By the way, Babs the Trolling Comedian: Thanks for the laugh. You write that my analogies are “baffling” and “incomprehensible” on the one hand, and “moronic” more recently.

                      It’s quite amusing that something you find moronic, i.e. worthy of morons, nevertheless, baffles you and exceeds your ability to comprehend it.

                      Think about it. Do the math. It’ll come to you why that’s funny.

                      Maybe.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Straw man, right wingers don’t argue that guns are a panacea.”

        You totally misread my statement. The panacea I was speaking of was in reference to your statement “no guns, nothing to worry about right?”. No-guns is not a panacea, after all, we’d still have right wingers to worry about. It’s funny how you have to twist words to try and make a point.

        You and pyro are two peas in a pod. Totally mixed up.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          You know, it’s sort of becoming an honor for such a completely screwed up individual to disapprove of my actions so consistently.

  9. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has concluded.
    Though men and women with firearm access were about equally likely to take their own lives with a gun, the latest research turned up a gender gap when it came to homicide. Compared with all adults without access to a gun, men with firearm access were 29% more likely to die in a gun-related homicide. But the analysis found that a woman who had a gun in or available to her household was close to three times likelier to die by homicide.
    Previous studies have found that three-quarters of women who are killed with a gun die in their home, and that women typically know their assailant. That suggests that women who live in homes with a firearm are more likely to be gunned down in a domestic dispute or by an abusive partner, the research team wrote in their study, published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine. But the group did not venture an explanation for why men with gun access were not much more vulnerable than other adults.
    The United States is thought to have the highest rate of gun ownership of any country, with close to 4 in 10 households owning a firearm. The nation’s gun-related homicide rate is higher than that of any other high-income country, and its rate of suicides carried out with a gun exceeds that of any other country that maintains such data.
    Many people cite those facts to argue that owning a gun is a household hazard. But gun rights advocates call that logic spurious and counter that by deterring threats, lawful gun ownership makes a household safer.
    For the new study, epidemiologists from UC San Francisco combined and distilled the findings of existing studies of firearms-related injuries. While its conclusions were in line with a wealth of studies already in hand, they may provide a conservative estimate of the risk of gun-related death among those who own or have access to a firearm.
    The analysis relied only on studies that started with a population of known gun-related homicide and suicide victims, then established whether and what kind of access to firearms those victims had and compared them to matched populations that had not died. In doing so, they sought to uncover whether a “true link between gun ownership and harms outcomes” could be drawn, they wrote.
    Much of the research that has linked gun ownership to higher rates of gun-related victimization has looked at rates of gun-related injury in large populations — in cities, states and countries — and shown how they track with gun ownership.
    The authors of the study, led by Andrew Anglemyer, sought to avoid the methodological pitfalls that have opened such studies to criticism. Gun rights advocates in particular have argued that population-wide studies overestimate the risks of gun ownership by failing to count firearms that are bought and sold illegally and, while rarely acknowledged by their owners, are often used in crimes. Even those who muster these findings in support of gun limits acknowledge they fail to draw a causal link between gun ownership and victimization.
    The 14 studies considered by the UC San Francisco team were observational studies, and they could not make a causal link either. But at least they started with a dead victim and worked backward from there. That may be the best that can be done, experts said, since it’s unlikely anyone will ever conduct a clinical trial in which study participants are randomized to gun-owning households or non-gun-owning households and then tracked to see how many in each group die by a firearm.
    Nine of the 14 studies were published in 1997 or later. That is after Congress passed a law prohibiting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from spending federal funds on research that could be interpreted as promoting or advocating for gun control measures.”

    http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.sto ry#ixzz2tQXpWWr7

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      It shows a remarkable lack of good intentions to, in the face of an objection about failure to control for reverse causation, to cite more studies that also fail to control for reverse causation.

      From the description: “The analysis relied only on studies that started with a population of known gun-related homicide and suicide victims, then established whether and what kind of access to firearms those victims had and compared them to matched populations that had not died. In doing so, they sought to uncover whether a “true link between gun ownership and harms outcomes” could be drawn, they wrote.”

      So, if that were methodologically sound, consider whether you would accept the following study at face value:

      “The analysis relied only on studies that started with a population of known fatalities that occurred inside and outside of ERs, then established whether and what kind of relationship the victims had to ERs, and compared them to matched populations that had not died. In doing so, they sought to uncover whether a “true link between ERs and harms outcomes” could be drawn, they wrote.

      So, any bets on whether ERs are associated with a higher rate of fatalities than those not in ERs? If so, is the proper conclusion to be drawn that since ERs are associated with increase fatality rates, that they should be controlled, restricted, or banned altogether?

      You are astonishingly dishonest, Mark The Troll.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      One more thing: “The authors of the study, led by Andrew Anglemyer, sought to avoid the methodological pitfalls that have opened such studies to criticism.”

      Except, of course, for the methodological pitfall of reverse causation. Which Andrew Anglemyer not only pointedly ignores, but indeed both he and the known anti-gun LA times intentionally evades, instead, seeking to (mis)represent that the study is free of such flaws and that the conclusions, therefore, are without flaw and should, nay, must be accepted at face value. So, Anglemyer is a snake, and the LA times is a snake. Slithering and venomous snakes which lay hidden in the grass and then strike with misleading and dishonest propaganda, dripping with the seemingly legitimate language of science. But actually, with no other purpose than to mislead the public, officials, and voters, as to the costs of guns.

      Despicable. Both for Anglemyer to pen, for the LA Times to publicize and for you to cite. Venomous snakes, all.

    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, say for the sake of argument that gun ownership did statistlically make one more likely to die. That has no bearing upon the basic argument that free people need weapons to defend that freedom from both criminals and governments. Your argument seems to be like Bloomberg trying to force people not to be able to buy large sodas because soda is not good for them. It is not his or your declision to make. Free folks decide for themselves. Remember, I do not own a gun patrially because I feared them around my kids, but that was my individual decision. You would effectively take that away by letting government decide who has a right to own a weapon and thus defend himself. That places you in the socialist leaning camp and thus the enemy of free men. Too bad.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        Fritz, you need some straightening out.

        “Mark, say for the sake of argument that gun ownership did statistically make one more likely to die.”

        “You would effectively take that away by letting government decide who has a right to own a weapon and thus defend himself.”

        How does acknowledging the fact that guns are dangerous translate into letting the government decide who has the right to own a weapon? It makes absolutely no sense. How do you make that jump? I understand that many of you pro gunners are afraid of your unusually unrestricted ability to own all types of weaponry being restricted, but can you at least try and follow logical arguments? Cars were said to be dangerous and so airbags were invented. Regulations were put into place. Did anyone take away cars? Nope. Did car related injuries and fatalities DRASTICALLY decrease because of said new policies and regulations? Yep.

        Stop living in such fear and stop listening to the lies that come from the people trying to capitalize on your vote by scaring you with stupid arguments that at any time, all your weapons will be seized and gun ownership will be banned. It’s hyperbole engineered to get your vote or put money into organizations/politicians that claim they support gun rights. And you are falling for it just like they want you to.

  10. cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

    http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/nj-gun-control-advocate-no -one-needs-a-15-round-magazine-unless-theyre-a-domestic-terrorist  /

    Guess again dipstick.It’s the Bill of Rights,not the Bill of Needs.By that logic,nobody “needs” a typewriter or computer to exercise their first amendment rights either.I own dozens of typewriters-guess I’m a “terrorist”

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      If first amendment rights killed as many people as second amendment rights you bet there’d be some controls put on it. Typewriters and most computers aren’t designed to kill.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        If first amendment rights killed as many people as second amendment rights you bet there’d be some controls put on it. Typewriters and most computers aren’t designed to kill.

        hoplophobes using their 1st amendment rights to attack the 2nd have helped kill countless people

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        Cars aren’t designed to kill, and yet guns kill fewer people than them.
        What was your point?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Your responses are too sloppy, incoherent, filled with emotion and lacking in fact to be worth responding to.

          You’ll be accusing me of the same thing so I’ll save you the trouble of embarrassing yourself more. No, I don’t do that.

          • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Oddly, it takes a level of awareness if what you’re doing, fallacy-wise, to be able to accuse the other guy of them first, so that you can claim he’s doing an “I know you are, but what am I?” Rejoinder. Sad truth though? You do EXACTLY that, and not responding to it won’t change the fact. Everyone who undertakes the task of reading all this will see it clearly.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Mark, you state that you think that some people should not be allowed to have guns. I basically disagree, but for the sake of arguement,who do you think should decide who can or can’t have guns? I find that the idea of government making such decisions to be very scary. Government’s track record is very poor about respect for individual liberty in particular. I am not saying that you have this attitude, but many socialists promote gun control to promote the socialist agenda. Basically they think that individuals having weapons could interfere with government agents dictating socialist policy. This is precisely why freedom lovers think that individuals need weapons. Do you think that government should be able to control the individual? If not, then how do you suggest individuals protect their liberty?

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Should a two year old have a gun?

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Mark, I have argued with libs a lot that children would be best served by beling conslidered their parent’s property until they become an “adult”. So I do not think anyone but the parents should decide if kids should have guns.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I didn’t ask who should decide.

                Why would a parent decide to not let a child of two not have a gun.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Are we supposed to read their minds? They could have any number of reasons, including good reasons or bad reasons. If it’s their legal responsibility, it’s their choice. You do think parents, and mothers especially, should have the right to choose, do you not?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Good, good. Parents can deny children guns for good reasons.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  These parents are denying their children their second amendment rights.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Do you want to make a federal case out of it? Or admit that, for better or worse, children are the responsibility of their parents? Where are you going with this line of argument?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Nothing in the second amendment about children being disallowed.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve piqued my interest. Could you please tell me more about this so-called second amendment, and what rights it grants (or protects) and what the limitations are on these rights? If not giving guns to children violates it?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark, the whole point is that from a libertarian perspective not necessarily mine, if kids were considered their parent’s property, they would have no rights until they reach “adulthood”, however that is defined.

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Should a two year old have a gallon of gasoline, and a match? If not, should such items be sold through a process of background checks, with licensing and registration and traceable micro-marking and purchase limits and octane limits and enforced safe-storage requirements? (Because, according to some, that’s the ‘correct’ way to manage guns? And either can easily kill if misused?)

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  There is no reason these children should be denied their constitutional right to a gun.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    I’m sorry, I don’t think you understood my questions, so I will ask them again verbatim.

                    What I asked was: “Should a two year old have a gallon of gasoline, and a match? If not, should such items be sold through a process of background checks, with licensing and registration and traceable micro-marking and purchase limits and octane limits and enforced safe-storage requirements?”

                    Thanks in advance to your answer of my actual question.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Children are being denied their constitutional rights.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Once again you didn’t answer my question. Could you please tell me more about these so-called constitutional rights and what are the limitations on these rights?

                    (I would thank you in advance, but perhaps thanking you in advance is premature. It was last time.)

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    It’s just as you said. Children are being denied.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Are you saying that because cars kill more people than guns, guns should not be looked at?

          Your argument is basically saying the only thing that is important is the number 1 cause of death. That is absolutely moronic, yet expected. I can see why a feeble mind like yours would try to use poor arguments like that.

          People are dying, but that’s okay, because there is something out there that is killing more people. Very smart of you. Did they teach you that in the military?

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            “Are you saying that because cars kill more people than guns, guns should not be looked at?”

            Is that what you read? Really? Tell me that’s what you read.
            I’ll spell it out for you, kid: I’m saying that the benefits to a given thing are weighed against its costs, and then, if possible, you figure out how to reduce the costs… But you don’t just ignore the benefits, or you’d still be walking everywhere.

            “Your argument is basically saying the only thing that is important is the number 1 cause of death. That is absolutely moronic, yet expected. I can see why a feeble mind like yours would try to use poor arguments like that.”

            MY argument isn’t anything of the sort, but the “feeble brain” interpreting it can’t seem to grasp anything more, like, say, addressing MORE THAN ONE cause of death, so that you don’t look this fucking intellectually dishonest, because, let’s face it, you are.

            “People are dying, but that’s okay, because there is something out there that is killing more people. Very smart of you. Did they teach you that in the military?”

            No, in the military, they taught me how to look more than one iteration up the stream of cause and effect. Also to look at a system operating in the condition proposed, before moving the system under scrutiny over to that paradigm… You know: like how violent crime in the UK skyrocketed alongside their gun ban, while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms. Oh, you didn’t know that? Salon and Mother Jones aren’t reporting that? Well, that’s too bad. Read some REAL news for a change.

            Boo hoo, people are dying, but we’ll ignore that almost 2/3 of them have CHOSEN to die, and of the other third, most of them are involved in gangs, or are “repeat clients” at hospitals and local jails for gunshot and stab wounds. Yeah, open your bleeding heart for violent criminals, but not for people who chose to protect themselves from violent criminals, effectively.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “Is that what you read? Really? Tell me that’s what you read.”

              Yes, that’s exactly what I read. What other relationship is there between car deaths and gun deaths? There is absolutely no relationship. So the only possible reason you could bring it up, and it is a very common one liner by pro gunners, is to draw a comparison in order to make gun deaths look more insignificant.

              But please, I must be wrong, tell me, what is the relationship between car deaths and gun deaths. You must have had a good reason for comparing them, so let’s hear it.

              “I’ll spell it out for you, kid: I’m saying that the benefits to a given thing are weighed against its costs, and then, if possible, you figure out how to reduce the costs… But you don’t just ignore the benefits, or you’d still be walking everywhere.”

              And what does that have to do with cars? Hint: Nothing. But thanks for spelling it out. Wait, did you forget that you were talking about the relationship between car deaths and gun deaths?

              “MY argument isn’t anything of the sort, but the “feeble brain” interpreting it can’t seem to grasp anything more, like, say, addressing MORE THAN ONE cause of death, so that you don’t look this fucking intellectually dishonest, because, let’s face it, you are.”

              Like I said before, why do you need to talk about car deaths when the topic of conversation is gun deaths? Your insults are pretty funny, though, especially considering they describe you perfectly.

              “No, in the military, they taught me how to look more than one iteration up the stream of cause and effect. Also to look at a system operating in the condition proposed, before moving the system under scrutiny over to that paradigm… ”

              You put sentences together, try and sound smart, yet they don’t say anything. What the hell are you trying to say here? My god, have someone help you write, it will save us both a lot of time.

              “You know: like how violent crime in the UK skyrocketed alongside their gun ban, while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms.”

              The amount of times you hear these same talking points. You would think one of you idiots had some original ideas or thoughts to contribute. But no, you don’t.

              First, why are you bringing up the UK? Didn’t Bruce tell you? Those comparisons aren’t valid. Second, do you see a gun ban in our near future? Every year, we are passing more laws in favor of gun rights than gun control laws, and by a large factor. So why are you talking about a gun ban?

              The UK violent crime rate looks exactly like that of the US during that time period. The early 90s were very violent and that trend started going down by the mid to late 90s.

              You say that prevalence of firearms increases and violent crime goes down. If you used your brain you would know that firearm prevalence is always increasing, yet out murder rates and violent crime rates have gone up and down. So when the rates go down, and firearm prevalence is constantly increasing, what would you say? That firearm prevalence is decreasing?

              • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                Babs the plagiarist troll sez:”First, why are you bringing up the UK? Didn’t Bruce tell you? Those comparisons aren’t valid.”

                You are incapable of not lying, apparently.

                What I said was that comparing one culture with another is (or, is potentially) invalid. (Depending on the differences in the culture.) But he’s comparing UK before the gun ban with UK after the gun ban. That’s entirely valid, because it isn’t comparing one culture to another culture, it’s comparing a culture with itself.

                You are permeated with dishonesty to your core.

                Pyro, are you sure it’s worth your time to argue with this troll?

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “What I said was that comparing one culture with another is (or, is potentially) invalid. (Depending on the differences in the culture.)”

                  Potentially invalid? LOL. Look at you not saying anything. Can you possibly try to backtrack your comments any more by making vague parenthetical additions like that? Let’s look at what you actually said:

                  “Not necessarily. I mentioned that *you* like to (illegitimately) make (non-apples-to-apples) different society comparisons, so, in order to indulge that preference of yours, I take the liberty of mentioning Japan’s suicide rates. Of course, that doesn’t mean such comparisons are valid, just that you like to make them.”

                  Ah, yes, just look at that beauty. Indulging his preference, hahahaha. Oh man, that paragraph never loses its hilarity. Illegitimate when Mark does it, excusable when Bruce does it. Bahahaha. I don’t see any parentheticals in there Brucey, do you?

                  “But he’s comparing UK before the gun ban with UK after the gun ban.”

                  Actually, no, he isn’t. Let’s look at what Pyro compared:

                  ” You know: like how violent crime in the UK skyrocketed alongside their gun ban, while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms.”

                  Do you see the second part there? “while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms”? Do ya?

                  Why else would he be interested in UK violent crime rates if not to relate it somehow to the US? Did you not think that through?

                  “Pyro, are you sure it’s worth your time to argue with this troll?”

                  You don’t seem to value your time, as you continue to show.

                  • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                    Babs The Plagiarist Troll writes: “Actually, no, he isn’t. Let’s look at what Pyro compared:”

                    ” [pyro]You know: like how violent crime in the UK skyrocketed alongside their gun ban, while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms.”

                    “Do you see the second part there? “while violent crime in the US has dropped with the prevalence of our firearms”? Do ya?

                    Why else would he be interested in UK violent crime rates if not to relate it somehow to the US? Did you not think that through?”

                    Given that you are incapable of following even simple analogies, there’s no hope you can follow differences of differences. But, in case anyone else is confused by the troll here, saying that the UKs crime rates skyrocketed along with their gun ban, it means that before the ban, UK crime rates were lower, and after the ban, *UK* crime rates were higher. (OBVIOUSLY) This is not a UK/US comparison, this is a UK/UK comparison. The OBVIOUS conclusion is that the UK gun ban did not reduce crime rates. Additionally, there is the useful information that the US crime rates dropped as guns proliferated. So we have higher US crime rates with fewer guns, and lower US crime rates with more guns. This, also (OBVIOUSLY) is not a UK/US comparison but rather a US/US comparison. So, what we have here is not one, but *two* intra-cultural delta comparisons (before/after a ban, or with fewer or more guns) and only the comparison between those is made. At no point did pyro directly compare UK with US.

                    Idiot.

                    “[me]Pyro, are you sure it’s worth your time to argue with this troll?”

                    You don’t seem to value your time, as you continue to show.

                    I only set the record straight from its lies, or present the actual case to an audience. I’ve long since given up the idea of changing its mind. If indeed it has a mind.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Hahahaha Bruce. Bruce. Brucey. You are a funny one. My god. Look at you try! You try so hard but man do you suck at this.

                      “So, what we have here is not one, but *two* intra-cultural delta comparisons (before/after a ban, or with fewer or more guns) and only the comparison between those is made. At no point did pyro directly compare UK with US.”

                      So you’re saying he compared UK/UK to US/US. Meaning he compared the UK to the US. You are saying it yourself right here. You’re just too stupid to understand what you’re saying.

                      I also find it funny that you think you have found the cause of why the violent crime rates went up. You think you have found causation. One variable. That’s all you think it is. One variable. Hahahahahha. Weird that our violent crime rates mirrored the UK during that period, isn’t it?

                      And did you also know that the UK defines violent crime much more broadly than the US making any UK/US violent crime rate comparison impossible without breaking violent crime into its separate components and comparing each one individually? I think we’ve gone over this before too. Did you forget?

                      “So, what we have here is not one, but *two* intra-cultural delta comparisons”

                      Delta comparisons. HAhahahahahahahahaha

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Yeah, there’s no cure for WILLFUL ignorance. Some people think there’s something to be gained by CLAIMING to be right, rather than taking the time to ACTUALLY GET right. How is Babby formed? Well, you just keep hitting the round peg into the square hole, with bigger and heavier hammers until you can tell your teacher “See? I told you it would go!”

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yeah, there’s no cure for WILLFUL ignorance.”

                      Apparently so. For the same reason we don’t hand guns to children there are certain adults (you guys like to call them “responsible gun owners”) that should not be handed a gun.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Apparently so. For the same reason we don’t hand guns to children there are certain adults (you guys like to call them “responsible gun owners”) that should not be handed a gun.”

                      Hey, long time no see, troll.

                      Who’s “we”? “We” hand guns to anyone responsible, age isn’t the defining factor. Apparently you also agree, as well as disagree, depending which part of the same statement we’re reading at the moment… But let’s just say that you shouldn’t pursue a quest to be the defining authority on who’s “competent” or “responsible.”

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “”We” hand guns to anyone responsible, age isn’t the defining factor. ”

                      Who is responsible? Give your criteria since you are proposing there is one.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Can’t answer it can you?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Can’t possibly imagine that other people don’t spend all day and night on the internet? Keep your pants on, troll…

                      “Who is responsible? Give your criteria since you are proposing there is one.”

                      Lol. Answering that is exactly as likely as you telling me all the people you will ever trust in your life, whether you know anything about them or not, right now… And for the same reasons.
                      Since you’ll undoubtedly dispute that, what criteria do YOU use when deciding to trust, say, with money?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You obviously consider some criteria that disqualifies. But again you decide to answer a different question.

                      Should everyone have a gun? I’m not talking about the law or freedom. Literally, should everyone have a gun?

                      I’m sure you’ll have some equally dishonest reply.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      No, Babs the Troll should not have a gun: It insults and attacks everything it doesn’t understand. (Which is considerable.) Giving it a gun would be foolish, irrespective of its ability to pass any sort of criminal background check.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “No, Babs the Troll should not have a gun: It insults and attacks everything it doesn’t understand. ”

                      So someone who insults and attacks everything they don’t understand is a selection criteria.

                      Any other selection criteria?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You obviously consider some criteria that disqualifies. But again you decide to answer a different question.”

                      Of course your “style” (or lack thereof) of argumentation disallows pre-emptively cutting off the route you’re heading, when it’s predictable, and you retreat to a variation of “But that’s not what I ASKED!” …regardless, it’s what you meant. Of course there might be a criteria that I wouldn’t give someone a gun, but unless I’m the one selling it, why is it my decision? But clearly you don’t think the person selling a gun who actually gets to MEET their buyer is qualified to make that decision… So why would government be more qualified?

                      “Should everyone have a gun? I’m not talking about the law or freedom. Literally, should everyone have a gun?
                      I’m sure you’ll have some equally dishonest reply.”

                      I’m sure you’ll CALL it that, no matter what I say, so it’s not worth any effort to avoid an inevitable claim… So the PLAIN, SIMPLE answer is this: There’s “literally” no criteria I can think of that “should” apply to “everyone”.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Meaning some people should not have guns.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I’ll answer your question, Mark The Troll, but you probably will call the answer dishonest, because it won’t go the way you want it to, and therefore will need to come up with some way to dismiss it: (Even if it seems to start out ok.)

                      Of course, it is obvious that dangerous people shouldn’t have guns. Why, they could just shoot people at random, and we don’t want that, right? So, we turn to none other than the most beneficent and wise gathering we can think of: that’s right, government. Who should better be able to tell us, in all their omniscience, who the good people are and who the bad people are? So, let us submit to their wisdom, and accept that government knows best.

                      So, who are the bad guys? The ones The State has declared are too dangerous to own guns? Why, it’s so very simple. It’s *the people presently in custody.* *Those* people, presently incarcerated, are the ones The State has determined are too dangerous to let mingle among the rest of us.

                      Others, please note, such as those given probation, or suspended sentences, or released from prison either because of parole or because they have completed their sentences, have, on their face, been deemed safe enough to allow them to return to society. Or even to never need to even leave society in the first place. Where, it must be said, they would be free to go to any number of places to buy gasoline, drain opener, shovels, picks or baseball bats, rope or piano wire, electric generators, medications, pipes or pipe wrenches, or any of a thousand other things that could kill people, without even being asked why they want such things or what they intended to do with them.

                      Oh wait, I almost forgot the most dangerous one of all. Yes, that’s right – you’ve guessed it, those killing machines that are all too common in today’s society. Yes – cars. Which kill 50,000 people a year! And which even multiply-convicted felons can buy without any background check – although, they can’t buy them while in prison.

                      And, of course, guns. Which are almost incidental after that last one.

                      If there are *any* other people who shouldn’t buy guns, other than those presently in custody, it would be those people on WANTED posters, that the government is actively searching for and will arrest – or kill – on sight.

                      But everyone else, including ex-cons who have done their time, should be free to buy any of the above. After all, the most wise and benevolent and merciful government has determined that such people *are safe enough to release from prison* and let them walk amongst us. And who are we, mere mortal souls, to argue with such wisdom and grace and all-knowing-ness of the mighty Government, in such weighty matters? If they are safe enough to let out of prison, where they could buy a thousand lethal weapons, they should certainly be allowed to own cars, uh, I mean guns, if they so chose.

                      Of course, so should the rest of us, and if any of them started doing untoward things, they should expect to get shot where they stand. Just like anyone else should be, if they too started doing untoward things.

                      There’s your answer.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Of course your “style” (or lack thereof) of argumentation disallows pre-emptively cutting off the route you’re heading, when it’s predictable, and you retreat to a variation of “But that’s not what I ASKED!””

                      I have made no a priori assumption in the question, it is a simple one. It is not loaded. At this point I am not concerning myself with who or what would limit gun ownership, only if there are limits to gun ownership. The second amendment makes no mention of limits. You have singled out those in prison despite that. There are likely others in this list. What about people who have entered the country illegally? What about two year olds? Those in mental institutions? Those on high doses of heavy anti-psychotic drugs?

                      You have also correctly identified that not everyone should have a gun. Again, I’m not concerning myself with who decides at this point, just what kind of person would be disqualified from having one.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “I have made no a priori assumption in the question, it is a simple one. It is not loaded.”

                      I call bullshit, and here is what I propose to do: When I see you ask an obvious trap question, I am going to take a piece of paper, write down the predicted “gotcha” response, with date and time, and then stick it in a private album on photobucket. I will then proceed to answer it legitimately, and if you (or babs, because if I can see the trap, she can too) try to “spring” it on me, I’ll link you the photo of my prediction. Don’t like how that sounds? Then play it straight.

                      “At this point I am not concerning myself with who or what would limit gun ownership, only if there are limits to gun ownership.”

                      Then you ignore that those are inextricably linked. Only an anarchist can truly believe in a decentralized system of behavior-correction. The rest of you automatically default to requiring government to “limit” a thing, if it can be enforced.

                      “The second amendment makes no mention of limits. You have singled out those in prison despite that.”

                      He has singled out those in prison ONLY for violent crimes, and that only because it hasn’t been acceptable to kill violent offenders when caught in the past century or so. Texas still has an archaic law on the books that’s unenforceable, stating that upon release, to get him reintegrated into society, an inmate was to be furnished with a set of clothes, a double eagle, a horse, and a revolver. One inference there which will likely escape you is that the number of inmates was MASSIVELY fewer back in the day, for many reasons. Among them, fewer laws, harsher punishments, fewer prisons, and a willingness to resolve problems at an individual level, rather than having the state do the arresting. Restitution was far more common, as were citizen’s arrests.

                      “There are likely others in this list. What about people who have entered the country illegally? What about two year olds? Those in mental institutions? Those on high doses of heavy anti-psychotic drugs?”

                      What about those NOT on high doses of anti-psychotic drugs? Once you go down that path, you end up mandating that everybody be subjected to psychiatric analysis, so that you know whether people SHOULD be, and aren’t… But then, what happens when they keep coming up with new dignoses, and new excuses that someone shouldn’t be armed? If you take away their right to self defense, YOU have to offer an alternative. Will you be putting in some number of hours per week to protect those who can’t protect themselves? Or are you on the new list of people who can’t own a weapon because of your ADHD? It’s the poster child for over-diagnosed diseases, so who’s to say whether you “really” have it or not? Well, let’s just agree that you have your rights, independent of what medical conditions you have… After all, Stephen Hawking has the right to free speech, even if they had to invent a new technology for him to utilize it.

                      “You have also correctly identified that not everyone should have a gun. Again, I’m not concerning myself with who decides at this point, just what kind of person would be disqualified from having one.”

                      Clearly you’re leaving it to US to concern ourselves with the fact that everyone who’s ever brought this up has meant “government oughta decide”, which leaves us at the point of “what about all those governments who decided NOBODY should, and then killed millions of people?”
                      How should they protect themselves, next time it happens? Call a different government?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “I call bullshit, and here is what I propose to do: When I see you ask an obvious trap question, I am going to take a piece of paper, write down the predicted “gotcha” response, with date and time, and then stick it in a private album on photobucket. I will then proceed to answer it legitimately, and if you (or babs, because if I can see the trap, she can too) try to “spring” it on me, I’ll link you the photo of my prediction. Don’t like how that sounds? Then play it straight.”

                      If you consider it a trap then you have admitted that a honest answer destroys your position. It’s a simple question you are too uncomfortable to answer. You do know there are ways of answering it that would not prompt a “gotcha”.

                      Your dishonesty is further showing in your inability to separate the why of gun ownership from the how. Your argument can’t survive without the straw man of big bad government inextricably tied to guns as property.

                      So again. You’ve observed that those incarcerated should not have guns. Is that all or will identifying a few others send you down your slippery slope argument?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “If you consider it a trap then you have admitted that a honest answer destroys your position. It’s a simple question you are too uncomfortable to answer. You do know there are ways of answering it that would not prompt a “gotcha”.”

                      Oh, are we starting already? Clearly that was a plain answer, and you’ve chosen to attempt to turn it into a trap, which you just finished claiming you didn’t do. An honest answer doesn’t destroy my position, unless the question is dishonest. Perhaps you’ve heard this one… Have you stopped beating your wife?

                      “Your dishonesty is further showing in your inability to separate the why of gun ownership from the how. Your argument can’t survive without the straw man of big bad government inextricably tied to guns as property.”

                      There isn’t a “how”. You go to someone selling a gun, you buy it. Or you make it. Clearly you’re not focusing on that, it’s too simple to disagree with. The “why” of gun ownership is the same as the “why” of free speech. Everyone has their reasons, and they don’t have to be the same as anyone else’s. “big bad government” isn’t a straw man, despite however many times you choose to deem it so. “big bad government” is an organization who are more interested in continuing to get paid than making anyone else’s problems smaller. If that involved bread and circuses, that’s what would happen. If it involved genocide, then THAT’s what would happen. The Romans did both. It stopped their collapse… Temporarily.

                      “So again. You’ve observed that those incarcerated should not have guns. Is that all or will identifying a few others send you down your slippery slope argument?”

                      Have I observed that? I think you’ve confused me and Bruce once again. You do realize that the slippery slope is a FALLACY, right?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes, your post, two entries above exhibits the slippery slope fallacy. That is why I mentioned it.

                      So what is it? Should everyone have a gun?

                      Regarding traps, you used that word first. Checkmate is also a trap.

                      “When did you stop beating your wife” is a fallacy. I gave not asked such a question. What us have asked us if you consider there to be persons with attributes that would disqualify them from having a gun. Consider nationality, age, IQ, mental state, legal status, capacity to know right from wrong.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Oh, btw, I looked up “working anarchy ” on the web but all I got was “404 Not Found”

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yes, your post, two entries above exhibits the slippery slope fallacy. That is why I mentioned it.”

                      Citation needed.

                      “So what is it? Should everyone have a gun?”

                      Everyone should have the ABILITY to have a gun. Unlike the liberal political machine, I’m not trying to MANDATE a behavior, never mind purchasing a product.

                      “Regarding traps, you used that word first. Checkmate is also a trap.”

                      You have too high an opinion if you think what you’re doing is the equivalent of checkmate. What you’re doing is looking at a set of midgame moves and saying “Why are you going there? The OTHER direction would have been better”, regardless which choice I make, regardless how many moves in either direction I can see.

                      ““When did you stop beating your wife” is a fallacy. I gave not asked such a question.”

                      You *have. You’ve been asking false-choice questions for a long time.

                      “What us have asked us if you consider there to be persons with attributes that would disqualify them from having a gun. Consider nationality, age, IQ, mental state, legal status, capacity to know right from wrong.”

                      what us… huh? Guess this is one of those times where I have to assume what you meant, because what you’re saying is garbled. Gee! I hope I don’t get chastised for that! *writes notes*
                      Let’s say I have no intention of making a blanket restriction to apply to every private transaction. I’m perfectly fine with any given seller of firearms asking for whatever papers they would like… If they’re racist and want their buyers to all be american, or only want to sell to civilians, or organizations, that’s up to them, too. Why would I care if he checks to see if someone has a clean bill of mental health? They’re just as likely to kill HIM first, if they’re a psychopath trying not to leave a trail… Seems like nothing I do is as powerful as his own self-interest, in that case.

                      “Oh, btw, I looked up “working anarchy ” on the web but all I got was “404 Not Found””

                      You’re not witty enough, just stop. You might want to research “Zomia” before you try that line of inquiry.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Everyone should have the ABILITY to have a gun. Unlike the liberal political machine, I’m not trying to MANDATE a behavior, never mind purchasing a product.”

                      So your answer is no, not everyone should have a gun. If that is not what you mean, then the question remains, should everyone gave a gun.

                      Exposing your queen is also a trap. You’re having troubles with analogies again.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “So your answer is no, not everyone should have a gun. If that is not what you mean, then the question remains, should everyone gave a gun.”

                      The answer is that it was another false question. You’re still doing “with us or against us” mistakes. The answer AS I SAID is that I’m not trying to mandate anything, but allowing the parties in a transaction to make their own decisions.

                      “Exposing your queen is also a trap. You’re having troubles with analogies again.”

                      Tying out a snare for a rabbit is also a trap… It’s no less a non sequitur, for that fact.

                      That said, you’re shooting yourself in the foot (and possibly losing your queen) to mention the slippery slope fallacy WHILE pursuing a line of inquiry attempting to make me “decree” who I would and would not “allow” to exercise their rights to own property, in this case, a firearm.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “The answer is that it was another false question. You’re still doing “with us or against us” mistakes. The answer AS I SAID is that I’m not trying to mandate anything, but allowing the parties in a transaction to make their own decisions.”

                      Nope, not a false question. It is not an either or condition. Your selection of “let someone else decide” is one of several responses. It relies on someone choosing rather than there being no choice.

                      How is one to decide?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      If you don’t think a yes or no question is an either-or condition, you don’t know what is.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Then it cannot be a false question. Make up your mind.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Then it cannot be a false question. Make up your mind.”

                      You’re being fucking ignorant.
                      ONLY closed-ended questions can be false questions. I haven’t wavered in that, your incorrect assertion to the contrary.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      On the contrary, you have labeled my question as exhibiting the fallacy of the excluded middle and then said that it is a closed question with only two possible answers. Not liking the answer to a question is not the same as it being false.

                      You know what I’m going to ask next and you don’t like that direction.

                      I know it’s tough to face but you are wrong and intellectually dishonest.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve answered my question, albeit grudgingly and dishonestly, by fabricating what you think is the excluded middle to my question.

                      In your example of transfer if ownership of a gun you want the individual to decide. I think a prison guard letting a convicted murderer have a gun is a horrible idea but I guess that’s the way anarchy works.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      If the convicted murderer is supposed to stay in jail, I agree that handing him a gun is a bad idea, he could use it to threaten his way out of jail. But if whoever decided he should go to jail in the first place has decided that he should no longer remain in jail, then that entity has essentially decreed that he is no longer a threat to society. Therefore, if you have a problem with handing him a gun, basically you are saying that you think he’s still a threat. In which case, you should lobby for longer sentences, or buy a gun to protect yourself from him. But don’t let him out, but deny him a gun, and then force everyone else in the whole damn country to prove they’re not him (and keep records of everything that everyone has ever purchased, “just in case.” Just in case of what? Just in case you want to confiscate everyone else’s guns?)

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “On the contrary, you have labeled my question as exhibiting the fallacy of the excluded middle and then said that it is a closed question with only two possible answers.”

                      No, I’ve said that YOU put forth only two possible answers, which follows perfectly well with the excluded middle. You’ve ASKED a question and given only two choices, and you are trying to conflate that with a factual statement claiming that there “are” only two possible answers, which is false.

                      “Not liking the answer to a question is not the same as it being false.”

                      Which you should start remembering when you continue to re-ask the question, ignoring my answer simply because it stepped around your pothole.

                      “You know what I’m going to ask next and you don’t like that direction.”

                      You can’t pull me in a direction that I’m not willing to go, so by all means, ask away.

                      “I know it’s tough to face but you are wrong and intellectually dishonest.”

                      Calling something wrong “tough to face” may sound good on paper, but again, doesn’t make it true.

                      “You’ve answered my question, albeit grudgingly and dishonestly, by fabricating what you think is the excluded middle to my question.”

                      You think it’s a fabrication to allow people to make their own choices? That’s kinda my working definition of “adult”: someone qualified to make their own choices. Do YOU define adult in a notably different way?

                      “In your example of transfer if ownership of a gun you want the individual to decide. I think a prison guard letting a convicted murderer have a gun is a horrible idea but I guess that’s the way anarchy works.”

                      Actually, that seems to be the way GOVERNMENT works, or did you think prisoners were (only) manufacturing their own?*

                      *I’m well aware that prisoners are capable of manufacturing weapons, having done a stint with the Texas prison system after the Navy. That said, when contraband gets collected, when a cell or “tank” gets tossed, it’s easy to tell a zip-gun from a Derringer.
                      http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/5e/21/5e2167_4617554.jpg
                      This one was made IN prison.
                      By the way: If government is too incompetent to keep guns out of prisons, how competent are they to command where they will and won’t be, in open society?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I see that you don’t understand a dichotomy and a false one.

                      Can you tell me what is false about this question:

                      “Should everyone have a dog?”

                      You will tell me that people should be free to choose in their own.
                      What is implied in that answer is the “no”.
                      .
                      I’m not obliged to ask open ended questions.

                      I

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Since your answer contains two answers you think you have found a false dichotomy.
                      You have answered no to my question and answered a second one I have not asked try. Again, you don’t understand what a false dichotomy is. Your answer is not a middle.

                      The test if your missive is indicative of someone trying to lie. Too much protest and of topic.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “I see that you don’t understand a dichotomy and a false one.”

                      You see a lot that doesn’t reflect reality, so this doesn’t surprise me.

                      “Can you tell me what is false about this question:
                      “Should everyone have a dog?”
                      You will tell me that people should be free to choose in their own.
                      What is implied in that answer is the “no”.”

                      That’s not the question you’ve asked. In fact, it’s not even in the same TONE as the question you’ve asked. Maybe if you prefaced it with multiple questions poisoning the well, about how some people eat dogs, or train them to attack people, and whether government should keep anyone from selling THEM a dog, then we’d be in the same ballpark.
                      mm, ballpark dogs.

                      “I’m not obliged to ask open ended questions.”

                      And I’m not obliged to answer bad ones, so I choose to expose them.

                      “I”

                      me too?

                      “Since your answer contains two answers you think you have found a false dichotomy.
                      You have answered no to my question and answered a second one I have not asked try. Again, you don’t understand what a false dichotomy is. Your answer is not a middle.”

                      Caller, could you rephrase the question and/or statement into grammatical english? Gosh, I’d hate to have you tell me I “assumed” something you meant here, and was wrong…

                      “The test if your missive is indicative of someone trying to lie. Too much protest and of topic.”

                      Again, as above.
                      Also, *if* you mean “off topic”, I agree, would you like to shelve all the sidetracks and get back to how you want to decide who gets guns, and how you are or aren’t worried about how government could abuse that and murder a fuckload of people?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I see that a lot with people who are bring intellectually dishonest.

                      You’ve claimed the question is false by answering two questions.

                      You don’t know what a false dichotmy is.

                      You claim that the words dog and gun have different tone.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I’m not willing to move on to the second question until we resolve will ultimately be weasel words for you to use in subsequent discussions.

                      We have to establish that you think there is some limit to gun ownership. I asked a simple question to which you have protested because it is a false dichotomy (yet is a yes, no Queston…go figure).

                      If there are no limits to who can have a gun then there is no purpose in further discussion since my assertion is that some people should not have guns.

                      You really need to read “Thinking, Fast and Slow”.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “Boo hoo, people are dying”

              That pretty much sums it up: you don’t care that people are dying.

              “but we’ll ignore that almost 2/3 of them have CHOSEN to die”

              If a family member of yours were feeling suicidal and had access to a gun, would you not do anything help? Would you just sit there and let them shoot themselves? I think you would help them. So why doesn’t that translate to strangers? Do you just not give a shit about people you don’t know? That may be the problem. Maybe that happened when you were in the military? You know, working for the government? Who knows.

              • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                “That pretty much sums it up: you don’t care that people are dying.”

                That does indeed sum up your lack of comprehension. It’s exactly the same as YOUR apathy at people dying… For anyone not dying of a bullet wound. Do you care that people who’ve chosen to die aren’t being thrown in straitjackets, declared incompetent, and having you make their lives even worse than they were?
                Do you care if the local criminal element are shooting each other, because the public school system couldn’t make them literate, or teach them a marketable skill, while the drug war gave them a lucrative sounding avenue to riches, despite the complete blind eye the system has turned on them, keeping them from being able to conduct a transaction in any sort of safe fashion?

                Do you?

                [me]“but we’ll ignore that almost 2/3 of them have CHOSEN to die”

                “If a family member of yours were feeling suicidal and had access to a gun, would you not do anything help?”

                If a family member of your was feeling suicidal and had access to a car, or a bottle of drano, or pills, or a high place, would you take those away as readily as you would take away a gun?

                “Would you just sit there and let them shoot themselves?”

                Would you watch them pull away into traffic, if you thought they’d put the car into an underpass pillar at 90 mph?

                “I think you would help them. So why doesn’t that translate to strangers?”

                You’re asking a question based on a false premise. You can look those words up, to prevent yourself from looking like an asshole, any further.

                “Do you just not give a shit about people you don’t know? That may be the problem. ”

                In other words, you think that people care more for the people they physically know. And yet, your solution is to get government, an organization that knows almost exactly NONE of the people it’s making decisions for, involved. Inextricably.

                “Maybe that happened when you were in the military? You know, working for the government? Who knows.”

                Clearly not you. Your suppositions are almost universally wrong. Maybe WHAT happened? During my time in a computer room, I somehow became mythically sociopathic? Clearly any attempt at socratic method will fail with you, due to a mixture of Dunning-Krueger and confirmation bias.

                We’re done. Go back to 4chan.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “Do you?”

                  Yes, next question. Did I somewhere state that I didn’t care about those people? Did I somewhere say “oh, boohoo, people are dying” like you did? Nope, pretty sure I haven’t. I’m glad you care so much about these populations which you have labeled as genetically intellectually inferior to you. Yea, I bet you really, really care about them.

                  “If a family member of your was feeling suicidal and had access to a car, or a bottle of drano, or pills, or a high place, would you take those away as readily as you would take away a gun?”

                  I’m guessing you haven’t looked up the statistics on suicide have you? Here, let me do the work for you:

                  Suicide Methods (2001)

                  Rate Per
                  Number 100,000 % of Total
                  Firearms………………16,869……..5.9………55.1
                  All Other Methods………13,753……..4.8………49.9
                  Hanging or Suffocation…..6,198……..2.2………20.2
                  Poisoning………………5,191……..1.8………17.0
                  Falls……………………651……..0.2……….2.1
                  Cutting / Pieercing……….458……..0.2……….1.5
                  Drowning…………………339……..0.1……….1.1
                  Fire…………………….147……..0.1……….0.5

                  So, what do observe here? Almost 17k suicides by firearms, 650 from falls, 5k from poisoning, which includes all drugs, liquids, drano, actual poison, everything. No mention of cars because it is so low.

                  Do you understand statistics? Ratios? That kinda stuff? Should I be more concerned about firearms or poisonings?

                  “Would you watch them pull away into traffic, if you thought they’d put the car into an underpass pillar at 90 mph?”

                  No. Any other dumb questions?

                  “You’re asking a question based on a false premise. You can look those words up, to prevent yourself from looking like an asshole, any further.”

                  And yet you don’t explain what that false premise is.

                  “In other words, you think that people care more for the people they physically know”

                  I thought you said it was a false premise? Yes, I think that people care more for people they physically know, and I think that some people lack empathy and don’t give a fuck about other people dying. Kind of like you, saying boohoo, 30k people are dying.

                  “During my time in a computer room, I somehow became mythically sociopathic? ”

                  Ok, so you’re saying it didn’t happen then. Were you born this way? Just naturally never gave a shit about other people? Hey, that’s fine if that’s your answer.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    It’s weird, I still think I hear grunting from under the bridge, but it doesn’t seem to be formatted in any intelligent way…

  11. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    So much for the reverse causality theory.

    “Having demonstrated the validity of this proxy variable, I next use these data to examine the dynamic relationship between gun ownership and crime. My findings reveal that changes in homicide and gun own- ership are significantly positively related. This relationship is almost entirely driven by the relationship between lagged changes in gun own- ership and current changes in homicide, suggesting that the relationship is not driven simply by individuals’ purchase of guns in response to increases in criminal activity.
    One possible explanation for this finding, however, is that individuals purchase guns in response to expected future increases in crime. My finding that lagged changes in gun ownership are strongly positively related to changes in gun homicide rates, but bear no corresponding relationship with nongun homicide rates, does not support this hy- pothesis. Instead, it suggests that an increase in the number of guns leads to a substantial increase in the number of homicides. The rela- tionship with all other crime categories is much less marked, implying that firearms increase criminal activity primarily through their impact on homicides.
    These findings contradict the results from recent work suggesting that legislation allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) caused a significant decline in violent crime (Lott and Mustard 1997).”

    http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/c oursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      “One possible explanation for this finding, however, is that individuals purchase guns in response to expected future increases in crime.”

      You know what that MEANS, right?
      “My ex was acting really fucking scary towards the end, and this restraining order probably isn’t going to stop him if he decides to break in, so I’m gonna buy a gun”
      But sometimes people just have to take a shower, and don’t think to bring the gun into the bathroom with them, you know? and in any case, SHOULD they? You’d see an increase in the calls of ‘paranoia’ (despite paranoia not applying when there’s ACTUALLY someone out to get you), and probably a drop in the victimization of those women.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “One possible explanation for this finding, however, is that individuals purchase guns in response to expected future increases in crime.”

        “You know what that MEANS, right?”

        Yes, it means you didn’t read far enough.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      One has it wonder why the NRA is so interested in the CDC not gathering gun statistics given that CDC data can be obtained via the FOIA.

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        One has to wonder how you’re going to get away with insinuating that the NRA is doing any such thing.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Are you saying that the NRA did not lobby government officials in the 90s to take away CDC’s funding into firearm research? Please tell me that is your position.

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            So you’re going to move the goalposts 20 years? Please tell me that’s YOUR position?

            Oh wait: You never TAKE a position, you just try to pretend nobody else’s is valid because it’s not yours.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              There is no need to move any goal posts because the NRA has always had the same position. They don’t want the CDC doing any firearm research, period. Why would I need to move goal posts if their position has always been the same? You don’t do much thinking do you?

          • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

            Not to mention that, sure, there can’t be ANY conflict of interest in letting the government determine what its own best interests are… right? Or that the people least educated about firearms are those most fervently trying to get rid of them… Heat seeking bullets… shoulder thing that goes up… step outside and fire both barrels up into the air… That sort of thing. Yep, we’ll have THOSE people telling the CDC what they should do, instead. As long as we tell them that they’ll be funded to get certain results, and DEfunded if they get OTHER results, that’ll work, right? Well, how shocking is it when the results aren’t what you want, then?

            http://ftf-comics.com/?comic=report-results

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              “Yep, we’ll have THOSE people telling the CDC what they should do, instead. As long as we tell them that they’ll be funded to get certain results, and DEfunded if they get OTHER results, that’ll work, right? Well, how shocking is it when the results aren’t what you want, then?”

              Man, you don’t even see the irony. You’re too fucking stupid to see it. It’s about to slap you in the face gain. Ready?

              Slap, slap, slap.

              The CDC is funded by Congress. Elected officials, or as you call them “those people” vote to fund it. They in turn act based on their constituency and private interests. And guess what? Private interests, namely the NRA, pressured Congress in the 90s to do exactly what you claim government is doing with the CDC. The NRA didn’t like their research because it made guns look dangerous, which we all know they are, so they cut their funding for that branch of research.

              You’re too dumb to realize that when you say “government” influences, what you really mean is corporate america influences through government.

              • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Slap slap slap! All you ever really cared about is getting them to do what YOU wanted: hypocrisy’s still yours!

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      “Life expectancy is the expected (in the statistical sense) number of years of life remaining *at a given age*.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

      First sentence in the entire fucking article. Emphasis added.

      It’s just STUPID to say that someone who is 98 has an expected life span of 78 years. Not from today, and not from the date of his/her birth. It’s so stupid, it should be beneath even you, Mark The Troll. But apparently it isn’t.

      Go ahead and try to dig a deeper hole, showing the vast cavernous emptiness of your knowledge. That might sound mean, but what’s actually mean is what you think life expectancy is. (Hint.)

      But whatever you do, don’t post comparisons of European-American crime rates in America, vs. European-European crime rates in Germany.

      • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

        And did you read the second sentence?

        ” Because life expectancy is an average, a particular person may well die many years before or many years after their “expected” survival”

        On a scale of 1/10, how stupid do you feel?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Bruce is basing his “life expectancy” on actuarial charts.

          Going to the emergency room doesn’t change whether you smoke or jump out of airplanes or participate in full-contact tractor pulls. Thus he is comparing apples to oranges.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            Or as he calls it, just being “polite”.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Speaking of actuarial data, check out one more example of Lott’s Lies.

            http://actuarialopinions.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/more-guns-more- homicide-or-maybe-less/

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              To the extent that Lott’s data includes countries with more or less similar demographics, his point stands. Most of the countries are European, with largely homogeneous demographics. That said, the data point corresponding to Japan does not belong on the list, although its removal doesn’t alter the argument. But in comparison, the US has significantly different demographics than the other countries on the data set. So Lott’s point is slightly weakened, and perhaps poorly made, but it still stands. And the author you cite is dishonest for not mentioning the disparity between the US and the other countries on the list.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                “To the extent that Lott’s data includes countries with more or less similar demographics, his point stands. Most of the countries are European, with largely homogeneous demographics.”

                And what demographics do you find important? Income? Skin color? How about firearm ownership per capita? Do you think that might be important? No one comes close other than Switzerland. And their gun death rate is 1/4 of ours. Availability of guns is the number one important factor to consider. The fact that this isn’t obvious is amazing.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  It doesn’t matter how loudly you scream that only one thing matters, it just doesn’t make it so.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Where did I say that only one thing mattered? I didn’t. My point, which you obviously did not understand, was that firearm ownership rates is not only a crucial variable, it is one that makes comparing our countries to others rather pointless.

                    And, if you remember, I called YOU out for trying to make ridiculous claims that the only one variable is responsible for the rise in violent crime in the UK, and that the only variable responsible for the decrease in violent crime in the US is prevalence of firearms.

                    So what you’re basically doing here is calling yourself out. Good job. You don’t look like a fool, I promise.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s closer to true than anything else you’ve backed with your reputation.

                      I don’t have to twist your arm til you exclaim a thing to be able to see it from your own words. You’ve rejected any valid comparison because they all fucked your claim up, and you’re desperate, so get back under your fucking bridge and let adults talk.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’ve rejected any valid comparison”

                      Which of them were valid? Please name one. Just one.

                      You know what comparisons would be a good starting point? Instead of comparing the US to another country, compare similar States inside the US. I know, pretty crazy idea.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Go back to 4chan.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Which of them were valid? Please name one. Just one.”

                      ANY culture compared with ITSELF, both before and after firearms prohibition.
                      But hey, maybe you can answer “just one question”…
                      http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/
                      “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

                      “You know what comparisons would be a good starting point? Instead of comparing the US to another country, compare similar States inside the US. I know, pretty crazy idea.”

                      You know, if you think differing geography is a horribly poisonous characteristic, and the closer people are together the more alike they are, why stop at states? Pick any single state, and compare the violent crime rates in places where handguns are more restricted, versus less. Would you like it if I used DC, and then compared it to Maryland and Virginia? How about Chicago, versus Illinois as a whole? LA versus California? Phoenix versus the rest of AZ? Detroit versus literally any other point in Michigan? After all, you wanted to make the control group as similar to the study group as possible… This way they’re under the same laws, hat to boots.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Pick any single state, and compare the violent crime rates in places where handguns are more restricted, versus less.”

                      How about St. Louis, the city with the 3rd highest violent crime rate, or Memphis, fourth highest. Do they have a lot of gun control in those cities that I don’t know about? How about Cleveland, Atlanta, and Milwaukee? Also top 10.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “How about St. Louis, the city with the 3rd highest violent crime rate, or Memphis, fourth highest. Do they have a lot of gun control in those cities that I don’t know about? How about Cleveland, Atlanta”

                      What are you trying to do? Trap him? Don’t be asking questions with obvious answers…it would be too much like being put in a losing chess position which we all know us bullshit…I have the pictures to prove it…gotcha!

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““Pick any single state, and compare the violent crime rates in places where handguns are more restricted, versus less.”

                      How about St. Louis, the city with the 3rd highest violent crime rate, or Memphis, fourth highest. Do they have a lot of gun control in those cities that I don’t know about? How about Cleveland, Atlanta, and Milwaukee? Also top 10.”

                      Wow, those are suddenly all in the same state? Nope, you failed to answer the question as it was asked… As expected, for a failing Troll… But boy these looked familiar, so I went looking to see where I’d seen this list before:

                      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/03/12/fbi-releases -2013-most-dangerous-cities-and-theyre-all-run-by-democrats-n1807 969

                      “It’s also important to point out that 6 out of the 10 most dangerous cities are in states with strict gun control laws.”

                      Hunh, so four aren’t as “Strict”… and you named… four… I wonder which four? But wait! As of 2013, your examples are NOT all on the list anymore, so they seem to be bettering themselves… Only Memphis remains, so… Citation needed.

                      Also, here’s why St. Louis made your list: It was tiny, and concentrated into an ultra-urban area, not diluted by the suburbs.
                      Source: http://nation.time.com/2013/10/11/police-have-a-plan-to-deal-with -st-louis-crime-rate-play-with-the-numbers/

                      Memphis is a noted exception to Tennessee’s State Pre-emption. It permits them to have local ordinances in place which the state does not have. Additionally, they’re piloting a federal program called “Blue Crush” that causes their statistics to be taken in a different way than every other locality (More complete, and thus higher), and poorest large metro area in the country. Also? Gosh you’re gonna explode here, but: Demographics.
                      Selected U.S. Homicide Rates by Race for 2000 (per 100,000)
                      Race Total Non-gun
                      White-Non-Hispanic 2.76 1.31
                      Black 22.28 6.14
                      White-Hispanic 9.59 3.14
                      All U.S. 6.09 2.17

                      But I guess that data collected by the CDC is only ok when it’s the type YOU want to see.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              First, Mark The Troll, this isn’t an article about the “good” that guns cause, because it doesn’t mention a single benefit that guns provide. It *only* talks about the costs. So, it’s of the slanted sort, for starters.

              Second, the article contains the problem of moral equivalence, in that the bulk of firearms deaths are actually of criminals, who are not productive members of society. One could argue that removing them from society is actually a net benefit, but of course the article doesn’t do this. Instead, it just gathers the medical costs of treating the victims.

              Third, it is interesting to note how the article ends:

              “Demographics and lifestyle choices are the bread and butter of those kinds of calculations, but — given recent personal experience — Lemaire is a bit puzzled by the questions asked of policy applicants. “I just applied for life insurance last week,” he says. “I am a scuba diver. [The insurance company] asked me 25 questions about my scuba diving habits. This is a sport that kills 100 people annually worldwide. Nobody asked me whether I have a gun in my house, yet guns kill 30,000 people every year just in the U.S. It is bizarre that no one thought to ask that question.””

              Yes, puzzling indeed, until a moment of research is done. Between 1997 and 2004, the Divers Alert Network reported an annual fatality rate between 11 and 18 deaths per 100,000 members per year. http://www.divebuddy.com/blog/11188/scuba-diving-statistics-how-m any-divers/ If the death rate was the same, then for 100 million gun owners, there should be between 11,000 and 18,000 firearms homicides annually. The actual rate of firearms homicide is about 10,000, which is less than for scuba diving, except that most of them are criminals killing each other, so amongst the non-criminal population, the death rate is much less. (I am intentionally excluding suicides, because those fatalities were desired outcomes.) So, the concluding paragraph omits an important metric, that of per capita death rates, and another, which is the risk to non-criminal gun owners.

              For all these reasons, the cited source is slanted and deceptive.

              As is the person citing it.

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                “First, Mark The Troll, this isn’t an article about the “good” that guns cause, because it doesn’t mention a single benefit that guns provide. It *only* talks about the costs. So, it’s of the slanted sort, for starters.”

                He was being sarcastic. How stupid are you?

                “Second, the article contains the problem of moral equivalence, in that the bulk of firearms deaths are actually of criminals, who are not productive members of society. ”

                Do you not know how lucrative the drug industry is? They are definitely productive. Probably much more so than you are.

                “If the death rate was the same, then for 100 million gun owners, there should be between 11,000 and 18,000 firearms homicides annually.”

                God, your stupidity is never ending. Are you really so stupid that you don’t see you are comparing death statistics with homicide statistics? There are 30k+ deaths per year to guns. That is well over 11-18k. Learn not to be so stupid. Please.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            And more costs… Wow, insurance companies seem to look on guns as a liability rather than an asset.

            http://budgeting.thenest.com/owning-gun-affect-insurance-rates-32 630.html

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Yet another dishonest deception from the master of dishonesty himself, Mark The Troll.

              The fact that insurance companies charge more for gun owners proves nothing about the net cost that guns bring. It is “well known” that smoking is greatly damaging to one’s health, and therefore, increases medical expenditures, and therefore, justifies that smokers be charged a higher premium for life and./or health insurance. Except that smokers die earlier than non-smokers (because it really is unhealthy) and so smokers end up needing fewer health-care dollars in their life time. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/22/alcohol-obesit y-and-smoking-do-not-cost-health-care-systems-money/

              Instead, the fact that smokers are a politically-targeted group, enables insurance companies to extort money from them simply because it is politically permissible to do. Of course all the insurance companies are in collusion with one another, so a smoker can’t leave one to find a better rate elsewhere, because they’re all in cahoots. Of course, don’t expect the oh-so-necessary-and-benevolent FTC to pursue antitrust charges against them, it’s politically correct to exploit or even oppress smokers. Smokers can just go to hell, seems to be the operating paradigm.

              Gun owners are in the same boat, it would appear. Gun owners, who are far from the demographic of those causing the vast majority of ‘gun violence’, are nevertheless being billed for the ‘costs of gun violence to society’ by the insurance companies. That’s no different from the raw deal that smokers are getting.

              But of course, you not only don’t care, you *cite* the actions of insurance companies as *proof* that guns are a liability! That’s extremely disingenuous! But, then again, you are a troll, and dishonesty and deceit are in your nature. You are a sworn enemy of firearms ownership, and will stop at nothing to sow doubt into the minds of anyone who will listen to you.

              Incidentally, Babs claims that corporations are evil because all they care about is profit. So you should only cite the profit-seeking motives of companies as justifications for political positions to the extent that you wish to speak alongside Babs with a forked tongue, that rent-seeking behavior is bad, except when it’s good.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Only a stupid idiot would expect a 98-year-old to die at 74, given that life expectancy is the expected lifespan of a person *at a given age* (sentence #1).

          In other words, you.

  12. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “Ignoring, of course, the thousands-fold larger potential benefit of deterring democides.”

    As I have pointed out. The Holocaust is not a part of this discussion. I will not be responding to any more responses where this red herring and appeal to emotion is being misused.

    I challenge you to read this. Please note that nowhere is democide is mentioned.

    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/insurance-life-expecta ncy-and-the-cost-of-firearm-deaths-in-the-u-s/

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      What’s the matter big boy? Afraid to read it? Cat got your tongue? Chicken? Your lack of response means you agree with me.

      Did I cover them all?

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        I’ve given you more than fifteen minutes to reply to the Europeans in America vs. Germany comparison. I have raised the subject in many different replies, and you have replied many times to other issues since the first time I posted the challenge. That’s entirely different from my not responding to you in fifteen minutes, troll.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Why would I defend your silly comparison? Go do your own homework.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            You are the one claiming that ‘more guns, less crime’ is *false* and you specifically cited US vs. Germany. Show the rates for similar demographic groups. I.e. removing, as much as possible, the vast cultural differences between Germany and the US.

            Or, retract this claim of yours that you refuse to support, namely, that ‘more guns, less crime’ is not true as regards Germany vs. the US.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              I’ve already shown the comparison of the US versus Germany. You want to sample a different population sub group. That is your job. When you didn’t provide that you started talking about the Holocaust. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. I’ve already picked my demographic, namely the US compared to other first world nations.

              Your goal seems to be to show that Germans and Japanese are peaceable and that some sub group of Americans represents most violence. I’ll leave it to you to identify those sub groups.

              • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                Clearly doesn’t matter what subgroup it is, you’re going to end up throwing the race card anyway… So why don’t we just point out that the highest violence in the world occurs in Africa and get it over with?

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  Clearly doesn’t matter what subgroup it is, you’re going to end up throwing the race card anyway… So why don’t we just point out that the highest violence in the world occurs in Africa and get it over with?

                  because leftist sheeple never let mere facts get in the way

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “you’re going to end up throwing the race card anyway…”

                  You first.

                  • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    What’s the matter? Afraid to touch the third rail?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s Bruce’s third rail. I’m still going with the US having a much higher gun ownership AND crime figures compared to other countries. I’ll let Bruce take the fall. He’s the one talking about different cultures but providing no data for Germany excel somehow he thinks the Holocaust factors in … Nobody else seems to be going down his rabbit hole…

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “It’s Bruce’s third rail. I’m still going with the US having a much higher gun ownership AND crime figures compared to other countries. I’ll let Bruce take the fall. He’s the one talking about different cultures but providing no data for Germany excel somehow he thinks the Holocaust factors in … Nobody else seems to be going down his rabbit hole…”

                      Compared to SELECT countries, with homogenous populations.
                      Where’s Mexico in your chart?
                      The reason he’s talking about different cultures is BECAUSE they’re cultures. Cultures ARE cultures because they have common traits. Some of those reflect the outlook of certain people to crime. I’ve been in prison and spoken to the blacks, gang and non-gang related… Apparently working an honest living is too slow, and is for suckers, when you can just apply overwhelming force and take what OTHERS worked for… Especially since nobody gives the black man a job, and if they do, they exploit him. I’m not making this up, it’s all stuff I’ve heard. The mexicans had a problem with disrespect. Family, too. If you fuck with them, or their family, they’ll go to prison over it, but they’re gonna try to put the other guy in a funeral home, first. Apparently white folks in prison have problems with DUIs, meth, and an occasional child molesting. But there’s the thing: If you look for certain groups in prison, to see what they did… You run into very few of certain groups… Jews for one. But I can’t think of too many Germans either. Or any other set of folks with a single discernible european nation for heritage.

                      So yeah, he’s asked you, and you’ve had near on a week to find out, and it’s YOU who has failed to provide any data for European cultural transplants to the US.

                      Similarly, we can show that LOCATIONS that don’t have machiavellian gun controlling bureaucracies, such as Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc.contain the lion’s share of the gun violence, and the rest of the country, if you excluded those, has rates lower than most of the nations you love to compare to, so.

                      Oh, and you haven’t showed how the holocaust isn’t applicable: The groups for which guns were verboten are the EXACT ones rounded up and exterminated.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      You’ve mentioned both different cultures and then different gun laws. You guys are transfixed on different cultures but different laws, as you seem to imply makes a great deal of difference. Well guess what, that’s what we are talking about, a law, many laws actually.

                      No, You and Bruce are going to have to explain to me what culture in the US makes for such high numbers of deaths versus countries (with different laws).

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’ve mentioned both different cultures and then different gun laws. You guys are transfixed on different cultures but different laws, as you seem to imply makes a great deal of difference. Well guess what, that’s what we are talking about, a law, many laws actually.

                      No, You and Bruce are going to have to explain to me what culture in the US makes for such high numbers of deaths versus countries (with different laws).”

                      Cultures matter. Laws matter. They EACH make a great deal of difference.

                      No: You’ve had a week to hold up your end. You don’t just get to make this excuse to fob it back off on either of us. Maybe that crap flies at work, but don’t think your boss and co-workers don’t know about it either.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll writes: “No, You and Bruce are going to have to explain to me what culture in the US makes for such high numbers of deaths versus countries (with different laws).”

                      Here you go:

                      “America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

                      National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

                      Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

                      If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world. [...]

                      America’s horrific murder rate [N.B. ~5/100,000/yr, an order of magnitude less than the compared countries] is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Our murder rate now largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

                      As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

                      http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/america-doesnt-have- a-gun-problem-it-has-a-gang-problem/print/

                      N.B. “Extensive” criminal histories … but those people are not in jail, they are out on the streets killing each other, and your response is to restrict guns to everyone? Logic is not your strong point, despite your fascination with logical fallacies. How about instead of controlling guns, we lock up judges who chronically release repeat offenders back into society? That, and not gun shows, is where the problem is.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Thank you.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What does “Thank you” mean? That you accept the argument and you concede your position? In any case it is not a logical rebuttal to the points under contention, irrespective of what Aristotle or anyone else might have had to say (or not said) about logical fallacies.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      What was the race of the killers of six million Jews in Nazi Germany?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Don’t tell Babs you asked, because you have been repeatedly rejecting the genocide angle, so I’m sure he will call you a hypocrite, or worse, for bringing up an argument that you have pointedly rejected.

                      But, unlike you, I’m a sport and can answer your question.

                      They were white, obviously. European-Europeans.

                      Then again, Mao Tse-Tung was Chinese, Stalin was Slavic of some sort, the Turks might have been Kurdish, I’m not sure, and Mugabe and whomever was in Rwanda are Black African and Pol Pot was Cambodian. It would appear, would it not, that the ability to be a genocidal murderer when one is in a position of power is completely color-blind, so the factor in common with all the genocides appears to be “someone who has successfully disarmed the target population”, but not “member of a particular race.” Needless to say, you incrementally seek to take us in that direction, enabling complete registration data to be collected after a few generations.

                      Unlike the routine crime statistics in America which seemed, oddly and just a moment ago, to be so all-important to you. They, unlike the genocide cases, appear to have a significant racial component, which incidentally is common across many countries, and which by itself accounts for most if not nearly all the difference between Canada, America, Europe, insofar as crime rates go, and irrespective of a country being “awash” in guns or having them be quite rare.

                      So, where exactly are you going with your racial question, after having asked it and had it completely and promptly answered?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Let me start by saying theat I have repeatedly noted that banning and confiscation of guns would be a huge mistake. Generally when you have nothing else to say you and fire starter bring out that canard.

                      Guns can promote liberty as easily as they can promote tyranny.

                      Please read the following to understand why your insistence on citing democide, which has more roots in non black aggression, is ridiculous when talking about crime statistics.

                      http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-population s-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/

                      Militias were largely ineffective in our own Revolutionary War.

                      Militias in the modern era have overwhelmingly fostered tyranny, not liberty.

                      Liberty and the degree of gun ownership in a society are uncorrelated.

                      Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

                      Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.

                      Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, you didn’t answer my question about where you were going with the racial angle.

                      Second, your citation of a website that characterizes the gun rights position is unpersuasive. You write:

                      “Even if they were positively correlated, the idea that gun control leads to tyranny is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.”

                      This is a straw man. Psychopathic leaders tend towards tyranny whether there is gun control or not. Do you deny that there are psychopaths in positions of power today? The question is, how bold can they be, what atrocities can they get away with, if the general population is armed vs if it is not? If anything, the opposite of your cited sentence is true, incipient tyranny leads to gun control, because why would a non-tyrannical government seek to disempower its citizens?

                      “Even if this thought process wasn’t fallacy ridden, the historical examples gun advocates supply don’t hold up under closer scrutiny.”

                      What is the closer scrutiny that you can apply to the historical examples that *every* major democide entailed a period of gun control prior to the massacres, that some how makes them fail? The only certain thing is that armed populations have never been killed, en masse. Refute that. Not all confiscations lead to genocide (England, Australia), at least not yet, but all recent genocides were preceded by registrations and confiscations.

                      “Even if the historical cases displayed what gun advocates contend they do, the argument would still fail as applying the lessons from the examples to the US overlooks massive cultural and socio-economic differences.”

                      Do explain. We have populations in this country today that hates others, such as the so-called “knockout ‘game'” in which members of primarily one demographic commit violent and sometimes deadly, unprovoked assaults on others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_game We have comedians calling for the murder of NRA members, http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/liberals-call-for-murder-of-nra -president-members-repeal-of-second-amendment/ or for the castration of *all* conservative, Christian males http://www.conservativefiringline.com/feminist-comedian-calls-cas tration-conservative-christians-says-pro-life-teen-murdered-whine s-backlash/ She also said told a pro-life female teen that she *should be murdered*.

                      This is the sort of seething hatred mentality that, when it is given the reins of power, tends to lead towards genocide. Is that the sort of “economic and demographic differences” that you were citing?

                      So, once again, I don’t find your dismissals persuasive. There are plenty of people, right here, right now, who have enough hatred to kill innocent people in different demographics.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      I suspect that I will be referring to this post in the future. So, bookmark.

      The Holocaust is not part of the discussion, because you are pointedly ignoring it, as are the Wharton professors (or students, or whatever) that you link. You, and they, attempt to gauge the cost of firearms ownership without any consideration of the benefits of firearms ownership. An enormously gigantic benefit of firearms ownership is that democides don’t happen, or ar least have never happened yet, in lands where widespread gun ownership is present. In fact, *almost all* major democides so far have happened shortly after civilian disarmament programs have been undertaken. That is a gigantic benefit of civilian gun ownership, but it is one you simply deny. According to you these democide deaths simply “don’t count” as I have written many time before. You affirm this position by this post which explicits states they don’t count, because you won’t be responding any more. You even have the temerity to call the subject a red herring.

      Well, apparently, to you, all beneficial uses of guns are red herrings, because you link to studies that neglect every one of them, without any qualification. Of course if you deny all beneficial uses of guns, especially including the biggie of democides, but even if you exclude it, then guns are obviously only detrimental. Because you exclude all the counterbalancing beneficial aspects.

      So, you can call it a red herring all you like, but for the record I will state that ignoring the elephant in the room does not lead to a fair and reasoned arguing position. 262 million killed by their own governments, after being disarmed first, according to Pyro, doesn’t count, according to you. 276 Sandy Hooks every day, for 100 years, occurring to populations that were disarmed first, is a red herring. You don’t give a shit about them. That is your position. I want to explicitly state it for the record.

      Not that they would be significant in comparison, but could you please (1) state for the record what *other* beneficial uses of guns you will be explicitly disregarding, for the sake of future discussions (if any), and (2) why you think that whatever your opinions are worth anything at all, given your admitted intention to not consider the issue fairly?

      Please realize that you are explicitly admitting a bias against guns and gun owners, which is apparently dogmatic in nature, and which can’t or won’t be swayed by any further discussion on the topic.

      In other words, you are admitting here that rationality on your part is explicitly out the window, and with it logic, which reveals that all your sanctimonious protestations about logical fallacies have been nothing more than an elaborate smoke screen.

      This confirms, once again and for the nth time, that you are nothing but a troll, Mark The Troll.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “The Holocaust is not part of the discussion, because you are pointedly ignoring it, as are the Wharton professors (or students, or whatever) that you link.”

        The Holocaust is a part of your discussion. Comparing crime statistics and genocide is like comparing duck migratory patterns and how birds fly.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          You cite things that mention the costs of gun ownership. You do not cite things that include the benefits of gun ownership. (Unlike us, who cite both criminal firearms homicides as well as crimes thwarted.)

          You are a biased troll.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            LOL, please. Even now you can’t even correctly represent the negative aspects of guns. You think that it’s only criminal homicides? That’s the only negative in your mind?

            “You do not cite things that include the benefits of gun ownership.”

            BS. We have brought up Kleck and Lott plenty of times. We have both said we completely are aware of DGUs and acknowledge that guns are used defensively at high rates.

            But that you think that guns are only used offensively, or for harm, to kill people is hilarious and very accurately shows what your problem in this debate is and how far your lack of understanding goes.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, liberty and gun ownership are definitely correlated. Only in a less free society could the state control gun ownership. Any control requires the reduction of personal liberty. You may consider it a good tradeoff, but one is less free when anything is controlled by government.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “Well, apparently, to you, all beneficial uses of guns are red herrings, because you link to studies that neglect every one of them, without any qualification.”

        When mortality rates for automobiles are listed there is no cry for the benefits of automobiles. In addition, you won’t hear about ways of making automobiles more effective in killing people.

        If you’d like to conduct a search for number of people not killed because of guns be my guest. You’re going to have trouble finding them though. The NRA doesn’t want that kind of data gathered (either).

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Mark the Troll writes: “When mortality rates for automobiles are listed there is no cry for the benefits of automobiles.”

          Nobody is talking about banning cars nor confiscating them. Unlike firearms. Troll.

          “If you’d like to conduct a search for number of people not killed because of guns be my guest. You’re going to have trouble finding them though. The NRA doesn’t want that kind of data gathered (either).”

          It is enough to know that 2.5 million crimes annually are thwarted by armed citizens. Troll.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            None of the reports I shared mentioned banning or confiscation. Another straw man of yours.

            “It is enough to know that 2.5 million crimes annually are thwarted by armed citizens.”

            A questionable figure but you didn’t mention the crimes committed with guns in your 2.5 million report. You’re not telling the whole story. Why do you ignore the damage guns cause?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Mark The Troll writes:

              “None of the reports I shared mentioned banning or confiscation. Another straw man of yours.”

              I didn’t say that they did, so that’s another lie of yours. But such “studies” are quoted by those who seek to ban or confiscate, such as the VPC, or the editorial board of many newspapers and even the New England Journal of Medicine, which has explicitly endorsed further restrictions on firearms in editorials, accompanying biased studies similar to ones you have cited which they have published in the same issue.

              “[me]It is enough to know that 2.5 million crimes annually are thwarted by armed citizens.”

              “A questionable figure but you didn’t mention the crimes committed with guns in your 2.5 million report. You’re not telling the whole story. Why do you ignore the damage guns cause?”

              I have mentioned them in other posts, many times. So, once again, you misrepresent my position. Dishonesty runs through your core.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “I didn’t say that they did, so that’s another lie of yours. But such “studies” are quoted by those who seek to ban or confiscate, such as the VPC, or the editorial board of many newspapers and even the New England Journal of Medicine, which has explicitly endorsed further restrictions on firearms in editorials, accompanying biased studies similar to ones you have cited which they have published in the same issue.”

                See, you are saying that they want to ban and confiscate even though they do not state so. How about pro gun articles that fail to mention that their advocacy puts guns in the hands of those who cannot legally have them? They want to arm criminals. They want crazy people to shoot up theaters. Their agenda is to arm every man, woman and child to overthrow the government… Or … Maybe not. You DO realize that your accusation is ad hominem right? We can both cite ulterior motives.

                Your 2.5 million study doesn’t mention bad uses of guns which is the exact thing you are accusing me of in citing gun deaths and crime. I have mentioned that guns have their purpose and I have also mentioned that they should not be banned. Lotts own study sheds no light on gun misuse, defense incidents that were actually assaults, or any other form of non defensive use. That is a totally biased report.

                You can’t have it both ways.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark The Troll lies: “They want crazy people to shoot up theaters.”

                  That is a disgusting and despicable misrepresentation of any pro-gun person, site, or organization that I have ever heard of or associated with. Nobody wants that, although the gun grabbers facilitate it by making some of them free-kill zones.

                  Maybe *you* want that, so you can stand in the blood of those victims and press for more restrictions of my freedom.

                  Go to hell.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    You missed the… “Or … Maybe not.”. :) Somehow you always manage to miss things.

                    I can easily claim your side has agendas too. So please, when you mention how good guns are include the fact that they are used for bad too. And any sources you cite, if they don’t mention the bad they are just sock puppets of the NRA.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      So if your sources don’t also mention the good that guns do, they’re just as bad… If you we’re inclined to be honest.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      If that’s the way you want to play the game. From here on, if you want to talk about the good of gun ownership you have to talk about the bad. I’ll do the same. Have fun. That goes double for you Bruce since you brought the point up.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I have talked about the bad many times. You, in contrast, have stated that you will ignore the largest benefit of firearms altogether, worth some ~262 million lives.

                      Incidentally, your analogy about bird flight vs. migratory patterns sucks. A closer analogy to the crime vs. genocide situation, closer but still not perfect, is saying that, lakes tend to make birds fly north for the winter, because those birds flying north tend to stop at the lakes, but birds flying south stop less often, so the lake obviously wasn’t the reason for the flight. Therefore, birds tend to fly north for the winter, as a result of lakes. This reasoning, of course, omits the fact that billions of birds fly south for the winter. “But that doesn’t count, we are attempting to establish what navigational influence lakes have on birds in the fall and early winter.” It may be true, but it is utterly insignificant.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “I have talked about the bad many times. You, in contrast, have stated that you will ignore the largest benefit of firearms altogether, worth some ~262 million lives.”

                      Nope, those lives count. Just not in the statistics we are discussing. Btw, in bringing this up, the benefits (there are some) you have failed to live up to your standard of presenting both sides. I dismiss your response because it does not mention the gross misuse of guns and the lives lost because they are so prevalent in the US.

                      You and Pyrodouche need to remember this.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Maybe we should use the couple of dozen people who’ve been run over by ambulances as evidence that they’re not such a unanimous good after all, right?

                      Because that’s about the same ratio as the 19,000 firearms homicides per year versus 2.5 million defensive uses per year…

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Maybe we should use the couple of dozen people who’ve been run over by ambulances as evidence that they’re not such a unanimous good after all, right?

                      Because that’s about the same ratio as the 19,000 firearms homicides per year versus 2.5 million defensive uses per year…”

                      You have failed to mention bad uses for guns. Your argument is invalid because it is biased

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You have failed to mention bad uses for guns. Your argument is invalid because it is biased”

                      It’s not my fucking job to make your point for you. Especially when I know that your point doesn’t consider all the facts, and outright denies that some of them are A: facts and B: Related to the issue, when they clearly are.

                      But if this is a game you want to play, I am now dismissing everyone of your points because they don’t mention all the good that guns do.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Pyrodouche sez:

                      “So if your sources don’t also mention the good that guns do, they’re just as bad… If you we’re inclined to be honest.”

                      I’m willing to play your game of representing both sides. Brucey has said my sources are biased because they don’t cite the reverse point of view as well. Do you want to plat the game or not? You can’t ask me to cite good gun stuff if you won’t cite bad gun stuff.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Here let me help you and Brucey.

                      Pyrodouche said:
                      “It’s not my fucking job to make your point for you. Especially when I know that your point doesn’t consider all the facts, and outright denies that some of them are A: facts and B: Related to the issue, when they clearly are.”

                      Here is my response.

                      It’s not my fucking job to make your point for you. Especially when I know that your point doesn’t consider all the facts, and outright denies that some of them are A: facts and B: Related to the issue, when they clearly are.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      The trouble with this challenge you think your setting up is that you’ve also conflated opinion in fact. You seem to think that finding an editorial cartoon or blurb in a newspaper is something that we have to rebut, but you are incapable of showing factual and statistical evidence that does anything like ameliorate the impact of millions of positive uses of firearms per year.
                      The trouble is, are used to significant figures, firearms homicides don’t even show up. Yes, they’re that low.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “The trouble with this challenge you think your setting up is that you’ve also conflated opinion in fact. You seem to think that finding an editorial cartoon or blurb in a newspaper is something that we have to rebut, but you are incapable of showing factual and statistical evidence that does anything like ameliorate the impact of millions of positive uses of firearms per year.”

                      The trouble with this challenge you think your setting up is that you’ve also conflated opinion in fact. You seem to think that finding an editorial cartoon or blurb in a newspaper is something that we have to rebut, but you are incapable of showing factual and statistical evidence that does anything like ameliorate the impact of the US having an extremely high rate of gun related death for a first world country.

                      I think your 2.5 million “saves” a year counts as a number pulled out of someone’s ass that contains many false positives, assaults, and “not really a valid use”.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “but you are incapable of showing factual and statistical evidence that does anything like ameliorate the impact of the US having an extremely high rate of gun related death for a first world country.”

                      Oh, like the factual and statistical evidence that you’ve been either ignoring or pretending is irrelevant, where we REPEATEDLY point out that the crime rate is only pushed that high WITH the gun-restricted districts, which have something like 80% of the firearms homicides for the entire country… And the number which you acknowledge that you’ve been told about, below…

                      “I think your 2.5 million “saves” a year counts as a number pulled out of someone’s ass that contains many false positives, assaults, and “not really a valid use”.”

                      …Which you’re free to disbelieve, but don’t expect other, more rational people, to follow you down that road. Now if you were giving us something more than “*I* think that’s bullshit”… Like “And here’s a study that refutes it, with similar or better methodology”… I’d listen. But you won’t, because none exists.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “The claim that the NRA is fervently anti gun-law is patently false,”

                      Oh yea? Here, I’ll even use a right wing wacko source: http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/nra-draws-line-in-sand-over-new-gun-la ws/

                      “At its annual meeting in Houston, Texas, Saturday, the National Rifle Association unanimously adopted a WND columnist’s resolution to stand “steadfast in opposition to any and all expansion of firearms laws” in the United States.”

                      Patently false? Can you clarify on that statement?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ““You have failed to mention bad uses for guns. Your argument is invalid because it is biased”

                      It’s not my fucking job to make your point for you.”

                      Tell it to Brucey.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      There is a difference between being anti-gun-laws, and being anti-additional-gun-laws. I’ll leave it to your spectacular abilities with a dictionary to sort that out, only leaving the cryptic clue that the NRA has stated it supports “enforcing existing gun laws already on the books,” rather than repealing such laws, as for example, I do.

                      Fifth grade reading comprehension. I.e. something that I can grasp (being like a fifth grader, so I’ve heard), but you cannot.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      No it doesn’t. The NRA opposes gun free zones. Stop making up quotes. Makes you look really dumb.

                      http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9335644

                      “SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — The NRA has begun its fight against cities that recently passed local gun laws. San Francisco is the first battleground”

                      See that? They are suing against laws that are “aready on the books”.

                      And yes, if you don’t want additional gun laws, that still makes you anti-gun law. Or does it make you pro gun law? Is that what you’re saying? It’s either pro gun law or anti gun law.

                      So you’re wrong on both counts. As usual.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “No it doesn’t. The NRA opposes gun free zones. Stop making up quotes. Makes you look really dumb.

                      http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=9335644

                      “SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — The NRA has begun its fight against cities that recently passed local gun laws.”

                      Sorry, let me repeat that…
                      “recently passed local gun laws”

                      Now, what’s the difference between LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, and MORE NEW GUN LAWS?
                      “recently passed”… That sounds like “more new gun laws” doesn’t it?
                      I won’t even let you fuck that up. The answer is yes. Yes it DOES sound like “more new gun laws”.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      So you are saying they are pro gun laws? They are either pro gun law or anti gun law. So which is it?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “The claim that the NRA is fervently anti gun-law is patently false, as evidenced by how many of the existing laws (which should be enforced before bitching that they don’t exist) it sponsored, or wrote outright.”

                      Oh yes, this will be great. Which gun control laws has the NRA “sponsored, or wrote outright.”

                      The only thing they sponsor or lobby for is laws that expand firearm rights, not ones that restrict them. Why would they want to write anti-gun legislation? Please explain. And do you know what “anti-gun law” means?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    You asked that we play this game.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You are shockingly dishonest, Mark The Troll.

                      “[pyro]Because that’s about the same ratio as the 19,000 firearms homicides per year versus 2.5 million defensive uses per year…”

                      “You have failed to mention bad uses for guns. Your argument is invalid because it is biased”

                      You mean, other than the 19,000 firearms homicides? (Which, btw, Pyro, is about twice the correct number.)

                      Shockingly dishonest, Mark The Troll.

                      Incidentally, the ‘game’ you are playing is of your own design. The totality of your posts disregards beneficial uses of guns, while I commonly mention criminal gun misuses. It is that, in combination with your rejection of the primary beneficial use they serve, in a discussion regarding costs and benefits, which prompts my judgement of your bias and your lack of rationality. Only you are playing the game that every single post needs both sides of the argument. It’s a stupid game, but then again, this is you we are talking about, Mark The Troll.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You are shockingly dishonest again, Mark The Troll:

                      “Brucey has said my sources are biased because they don’t cite the reverse point of view as well.”

                      That, of course, grossly misrepresents my position, which is that your cited sources also pointedly ignore reverse causation in considering whether guns are beneficial or not. Hence my analogy about ERs being associated with excess deaths.

                      Shockingly dishonest on your part, Mark The Troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Your exact words: “That is a totally biased report”. As I showed earlier, there was a study that looked at reverse causation and found it to not be true. Continue to ignore facts. Somewhere someone is doing something good with the aid of a gun but you have failed again to show that you have an unbiased view. You haven’t shown any bad uses of guns in your response therefore you are biased.

                      Your responses outlining biases is ad hominem and in no way is a refutation to the articles cited. If you can’t refute then you have nothing.

                      The articles you cite never talk about the negative aspects if gun ownership. By your own reasoning they are biased and not to be trusted.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Here you go Bruce. It’s terribly dishonest of you to ignore what you are doing:

                      http://linglogic.wikia.com/wiki/Attacking_the_motive

                      The Attacking the Motive Fallacy is a sub category of an ad hominem in which the second arguer attacks the first arguer’s thesis by challenging his motives behind his argument, such as what he gains or benefits from his proposed thesis

                      Pattern
                      A is for B. A benefits from B. Therefore A’s arguments are invalid.

                      Suck it Bruce.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Ohh ohh, let me guess, Aristotle’s logical fallacies didn’t mention good uses of fallacies so he was biased!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You are shockingly dishonest, Mark The Troll.

                      You wrote: “Your exact words: “That is a totally biased report”.”

                      That is the sum total of their case. No consideration of benefits. I.e. no attempt to make a cost-benefit analysis. If that isn’t biased, what, pray tell, is?

                      “As I showed earlier, there was a study that looked at reverse causation and found it to not be true. Continue to ignore facts.”

                      But, you linked to *other studies* which didn’t do that. My objection to them stands. You are the one ignoring facts.

                      “Somewhere someone is doing something good with the aid of a gun but you have failed again to show that you have an unbiased view. You haven’t shown any bad uses of guns in your response therefore you are biased.”

                      As I have already written, this is your game and you are the only one playing it.

                      “Your responses outlining biases is ad hominem and in no way is a refutation to the articles cited. If you can’t refute then you have nothing.”

                      Dishonest again. IF I can’t, but I can and have. I’ve pointed out failure to control for reverse causation that was not considered, in other studies you have linked. I could produce one from the NEJM, which was even objected to in the Letters to the Editor, and the error was repeated there in the response.

                      “The articles you cite never talk about the negative aspects if gun ownership. By your own reasoning they are biased and not to be trusted.”

                      Yet another lie. John Lott talks about criminal misuses vs. lawful defensive uses. Among others.

                      “Here you go Bruce. It’s terribly dishonest of you to ignore what you are doing:”

                      [Attacking the motive]

                      “Pattern
                      A is for B. A benefits from B. Therefore A’s arguments are invalid.”

                      “Suck it Bruce.”

                      Lie, that is not what I am saying. More formally, that is a straw man, because that is not what I am doing. I attack the methodology first, and then conclude that the motive is unclean. You continually lie.

                      “Ohh ohh, let me guess, Aristotle’s logical fallacies didn’t mention good uses of fallacies so he was biased!”

                      Is that your attempt at a joke? It’s stupid.

                      Then again, what do you care about logic? You have stated that you will not consider the democide aspect again. So your mind is made up, and your position is dogmatic. Logic has no place with you.

                      http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-23/#comment-655606

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “That is the sum total of their case. No consideration of benefits. I.e. no attempt to make a cost-benefit analysis. If that isn’t biased, what, pray tell, is?”

                      In conducting mortality in automobiles the benefits are given. Because the benefits are not weighed does not make the study of automobile mortality biased. Those figures on mortality produce their own benefit regardless of the overriding benefit.

                      You have the unenviable privilege of arguing that because guns are involved in good outcomes the bad ones don’t count so much and that identifying those is biased (due to some ulterior motive). This comes full circle back to your ad hominem fallacy. I’ve identified this fallacy of yours before but you continue to misuse your data. People focus on bad outcomes with the intent of eliminating them. Looking at good outcomes does nothing in solving a problem.

                      Lost in all of this are the gun uses that didn’t result in death but are in fact illegal. I don’t see any of your data mentioning this…only the glowing reports of a granny in Wisconsin shooting a burglar in the ass. You’d need to throw in assaults with a deadly weapon, sales of guns to people who are prohibited from having them and of course you don’t want suicides counted on the bad side of gun ownership so I guess they must go in the good side. (No they wouldn’t have all killed themselves anyway, that’s another lie for another discussion)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      But yea, keep on polishing that turd.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “In conducting mortality in automobiles the benefits are given. Because the benefits are not weighed does not make the study of automobile mortality biased. Those figures on mortality produce their own benefit regardless of the overriding benefit.”

                      In other words, people are rational about cars because they PERSONALLY have an investment in not having their cars confiscated, and as such fearmongering can’t get any traction.

                      “You have the unenviable privilege of arguing that because guns are involved in good outcomes the bad ones don’t count so much and that identifying those is biased (due to some ulterior motive).”

                      Don’t count as much as what? Would you like vegas odds? 1:1 isn’t enough for you? I could give you 5 DGUs for each homicide, and still show a net positive effect. And as always, the grabbers’ game is “well since it didn’t happen, you can’t know how to weight it”… Well, how many other things in life should we apply that to? “Your honor, this man was drunk, weaving his way home, but before he made it there, this officer stopped him and arrested him.”
                      Yep, since he didn’t actually hurt anyone, that won’t count. Good plan. I’d vote for it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “In other words, people are rational about cars because they PERSONALLY have an investment in not having their cars confiscated, and as such fearmongering can’t get any traction.”

                      Straw man.

                      “You have the unenviable privilege of arguing that because guns are involved in good outcomes the bad ones don’t count so much and that identifying those is biased (due to some ulterior motive).”

                      “Don’t count as much as what? Would you like vegas odds? 1:1 isn’t enough for you? I could give you 5 DGUs for each homicide, and still show a net positive effect.”

                      Cars have a huge positive effect too. That doesn’t mean we stop finding ways to make them safer. Will it have to get to a fifty percent mortality rate before you change your mind? How many dead people does it take before you give a shit?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Straw man.”

                      lol. You’ve repeatedly proven that you either don’t know what a straw man is, how it applies, or that you just don’t care, and think it makes you sound smarter.

                      “Cars have a huge positive effect too. That doesn’t mean we stop finding ways to make them safer. Will it have to get to a fifty percent mortality rate before you change your mind? How many dead people does it take before you give a shit?”

                      “Making guns safer” involves something that was pretty much perfected hundreds of years ago. Well before the invention of the automobile. You pull the trigger, an explosion goes off, and if the bullet goes out the other end, and the gun doesn’t get damaged, similarly exploding for example, then it has done its job. Cars, on the other hand, have a MUCH HIGHER mortality rate than guns, so let me know when YOU change your mind. How many dead people would YOU need to see before you’d doubt cars?
                      http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-c ars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “lol. You’ve repeatedly proven that you either don’t know what a straw man is, how it applies, or that you just don’t care, and think it makes you sound smarter.”

                      No, your rant about confiscation is a straw man. We are nowhere near a confiscation point. In fact we have the opposite where a criminal can get a gun with no questions asked. You probably call them private sales. Your rant could also be a form of red herring but the way you deal with the subject matter leans more toward straw man.

                      “Making guns safer” involves something that was pretty much perfected hundreds of years ago. Well before the invention of the automobile. You pull the trigger, an explosion goes off, and if the bullet goes out the other end, and the gun doesn’t get damaged, similarly exploding for example, then it has done its job.”

                      Your disingenuousness is showing. Or maybe it’s your reading comprehension again.

                      “Cars, on the other hand, have a MUCH HIGHER mortality rate than guns, so let me know when YOU change your mind. How many dead people would YOU need to see before you’d doubt cars?”

                      So because cars have a higher mortality rate we don’t have to give a shit about how unsafe guns are in the wrong hands…to clarify the point you deliberately ignored.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “How many dead people would YOU need to see before you’d doubt cars?”

                      Any, any deaths by cars would make me consider them a risk factor I would have to weigh. You never answered my side of the question.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “No, your rant about confiscation is a straw man. We are nowhere near a confiscation point. In fact we have the opposite where a criminal can get a gun with no questions asked. You probably call them private sales. Your rant could also be a form of red herring but the way you deal with the subject matter leans more toward straw man.”

                      Oh? Nowhere near confiscation he says…
                      http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/new-york-city-confiscating-rifl es-and-shotguns/
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscat ion-bill_n_3117238.html
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd- storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

                      Yeah, I’ll just trust you, those guys are moonbat tinfoil hat crazy, huh?

                      [me]“Making guns safer” involves something that was pretty much perfected hundreds of years ago. Well before the invention of the automobile. You pull the trigger, an explosion goes off, and if the bullet goes out the other end, and the gun doesn’t get damaged, similarly exploding for example, then it has done its job.”

                      “Your disingenuousness is showing. Or maybe it’s your reading comprehension again.”

                      Oh, DO explain that. Tell me what part of the MANUFACTURER’s duty it is to see that neither your Ford nor your Colt get pointed at humans, before being fired up.

                      [me]“Cars, on the other hand, have a MUCH HIGHER mortality rate than guns, so let me know when YOU change your mind. How many dead people would YOU need to see before you’d doubt cars?”

                      “So because cars have a higher mortality rate we don’t have to give a shit about how unsafe guns are in the wrong hands…to clarify the point you deliberately ignored.”

                      You mean the point you deliberately missed. Since you clearly ALREADY care about how unsafe one thing is, I just want you to realize how dishonest it is to ignore the other, with far greater mortality, even per unit owned.

                      [me]“How many dead people would YOU need to see before you’d doubt cars?”

                      “Any, any deaths by cars would make me consider them a risk factor I would have to weigh. You never answered my side of the question.”

                      Wow, you’re considering the risks of cars? No you’re not. You’re not even ENTERTAINING the notion that cars shouldn’t be available to anyone who can buy them.

                      I should answer how many people die before I care that more lives are saved than taken? Tell you what: I agree that irresponsible and dangerous people shouldn’t be empowered with that sort of firepower, so once we take the guns away from militaries and police forces, we can talk.
                      You know, that inconvenient fact that more people have been shot by cops here in the US than killed by terrorists/insurgents since 9/11… Or that our government is responsible for a greater number of deaths per day, per capita, than Saddam ever was, in Iraq? Sure, we should definitely not be allowing them to buy more guns… Or even ammo. Get right on that. You can’t be “defensive” when you’re an invader.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Oh? Nowhere near confiscation he says…”

                      http://csgv.org/blog/2013/how-the-nra-arms-criminals/

                      “But in truth not only does the NRA oppose laws that would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms in the place, it goes a step further and supports efforts to restore €œgun rights € to individuals who have lost them because of dangerous and/or violent behavior.”

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Wow, you’re considering the risks of cars? No you’re not. You’re not even ENTERTAINING the notion that cars shouldn’t be available to anyone who can buy them.”

                      Nope. Drunk drivers should not have them. Those too old, young, or incapacitated should not. Those who drive without liability insurance. Those who drive dilapidated and dangerous vehicles.

                      I avoid certain roadway and time of day travel. I wear a seatbelt. I will not buy a car with a poor safety rating. There are times that I fly rather than drive due to safety.

                      You don’t have a clue what I’m thinking.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “I should answer how many people die before I care that more lives are saved than taken? Tell you what: I agree that irresponsible and dangerous people shouldn’t be empowered with that sort of firepower, so once we take the guns away from militaries and police forces, we can talk.
                      You know, that inconvenient fact that more people have been shot by cops here in the US than killed by terrorists/insurgents since 9/11… Or that our government is responsible for a greater number of deaths per day, per capita, than Saddam ever was, in Iraq? Sure, we should definitely not be allowing them to buy more guns… Or even ammo. Get right on that. You can’t be “defensive” when you’re an invader.”

                      You seem to be arguing from a point of emotion. That is never a good recipe for rational debate. Right now you are rambling, just like Bruce does.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Oh, DO explain that. Tell me what part of the MANUFACTURER’s duty it is to see that neither your Ford nor your Colt get pointed at humans, before being fired up.”

                      This is incoherent.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”

                      — John Adams

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      http://csgv.org/blog/2013/how-the-nra-arms-criminals/

                      “But in truth not only does the NRA oppose laws that would prevent criminals from obtaining firearms in the place, it goes a step further and supports efforts to restore €œgun rights € to individuals who have lost them because of dangerous and/or violent behavior.”

                      Article is complete bullshit, and attempts to avoid the known fact that SO few firearms used in crimes would be affected by the proposed laws that the money would be better spent on more effective things… The claim that the NRA is fervently anti gun-law is patently false, as evidenced by how many of the existing laws (which should be enforced before bitching that they don’t exist) it sponsored, or wrote outright. Also, the title is outright libelous.

                      [me]“Wow, you’re considering the risks of cars? No you’re not. You’re not even ENTERTAINING the notion that cars shouldn’t be available to anyone who can buy them.”

                      “Nope. Drunk drivers should not have them. Those too old, young, or incapacitated should not. Those who drive without liability insurance. Those who drive dilapidated and dangerous vehicles.

                      I avoid certain roadway and time of day travel. I wear a seatbelt. I will not buy a car with a poor safety rating. There are times that I fly rather than drive due to safety.

                      You don’t have a clue what I’m thinking.”

                      I don’t have much evidence that you DO. Most of what you just listed wasn’t even controlling cars, but you’ve proven that you want to be able to control both the machine, AND the humans who own or operate them.
                      But let me be clear: You’re conflating two things that I don’t think you realize… Licensing and ownership. The government never takes away your car. Unless you parked in front of a fire hydrant, or some other pedantic excuse, the government doesn’t ever come and GET your car, saying that you’re unfit to drive. They revoke your LICENSE. Now I don’t care which of these solutions you think is dumb, but if you took away someone’s concealed/open carry license, and not their gun, you quiet a lot of concerns. Do you instinctively want to go “But that’s ridiculous! They’ll just carry it anyways, and…” you know, dangerous stuff? Well, that’s what we do with cars all the time. Hasn’t been sober in the last 5 years, including on his court dates? Take away the little plastic square that says he’s allowed to drive. That’ll fix it. As for the gun? Maybe he will keep carrying… Maybe you’ll never know, and that’s the point of concealed carry, as well as good procedure and habits. I once had a neighbor mention “I didn’t know you carried a gun” and I told her “that’s the idea.” “How long have you been doing that?” “The fact that you don’t know means I’ve been doing it right.”

                      [me]“I should answer how many people die before I care that more lives are saved than taken? Tell you what: I agree that irresponsible and dangerous people shouldn’t be empowered with that sort of firepower, so once we take the guns away from militaries and police forces, we can talk.
                      You know, that inconvenient fact that more people have been shot by cops here in the US than killed by terrorists/insurgents since 9/11… Or that our government is responsible for a greater number of deaths per day, per capita, than Saddam ever was, in Iraq? Sure, we should definitely not be allowing them to buy more guns… Or even ammo. Get right on that. You can’t be “defensive” when you’re an invader.”

                      “You seem to be arguing from a point of emotion. That is never a good recipe for rational debate. Right now you are rambling, just like Bruce does.”

                      We tried logic and facts, they went right through both ends. Rational debate is long since gone the way of the dodo. I had a fleeting hope that emotional appeals were at least speaking the liberal language, but it’s clear now that I have to speak actual gibberish.

                      [me]“Oh, DO explain that. Tell me what part of the MANUFACTURER’s duty it is to see that neither your Ford nor your Colt get pointed at humans, before being fired up.”

                      “This is incoherent.”

                      It really isn’t. Why don’t you tell me which word you don’t comprehend, and I’ll hold your hand through it.
                      Maybe I should ask if it was Boeing’s fault that 9/11 happened.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.”

                      – John Adams”

                      government is instituted to protect those things that it must first violate, in order to exist? Guess it has to fail.

                      http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-th e-constitution-of-no-authority/

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So much anger, so little logic. Your rants remind me of Bruce.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “government is instituted to protect those things that it must first violate, in order to exist? Guess it has to fail.”

                      http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-th e-constitution-of-no-authority/

                      Cool! So we can shit-can that second amendment thing. I sure didn’t vote for it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Maybe I should ask if it was Boeing’s fault that 9/11 happened.”

                      Rambling again I see.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark the Liar, tells the truth (for once): “Cool! So we can shit-can that second amendment thing. I sure didn’t vote for it.”

                      Glad to see the truth come out, finally. After all this denial about your desire to confiscate or anything else.

                      Tell us, for the record, if you got your wish and the Second Amendment were shit-canned, what would be your desire as to what should happen subsequently? On its face, the rights to keep and/or bear arms would no longer be protected. In light of that, what would you seek to bring about? Is it the keep part that you seek to get rid of, meaning, you desire confiscations after all, or is the bear part, and you’d ban open and/or concealed carry, notwithstanding the protective effect such carry has at least on public mass shootings? Or both?

                      Would you just have the police shoot people who illegally retained guns? (Thereby earning extra points for making the hypocrisy complete.)

                      Would you also institute separate drinking fountains for us?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      [me]““Maybe I should ask if it was Boeing’s fault that 9/11 happened.”

                      “Rambling again I see.”

                      Guess I’ll have to wash my hands again, after I’m through holding yours. I’m asking you if we hold ALL manufacturers responsible for deaths caused by user-malfeasance. See? Wasn’t so cryptic, after all.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Cool! So we can shit-can that second amendment thing. I sure didn’t vote for it.”

                      You can give up YOUR rights any time you want. You can’t have mine though, I’m still using them.
                      Besides, it’s not like the bill of rights GRANTS rights… Rights are inherent. It just says them out loud, nothing more. Pretty sure I’ve already asked you… If government were the source of rights, how could any government be guilty of human rights’ violations?

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “It is enough to know that 2.5 million crimes annually are thwarted by armed citizens.”

            And according to the authors of that study, 90+% of those DGU’s involved brandishing the weapon. Right?

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Would you rather they were shot? Or are you trying to rekindle an argument that I have repeatedly stated is over?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                No. Obviously. Now that we have gotten past your stupid attempt at making some kind of point, let us look at the facts. Sorry, you can’t say it is over when you cite a study that brings it back up. The study you cite states that the majority of DGUs only involve brandishing the weapon. Makes it kind of inconvenient for you doesn’t it?

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  It does not inconvenience me in the least that words have different meanings in different places, and that some people use words differently than other people do. Especially since this very fact is something I have pointed out in the past.

                  Does this fact inconvenience you, by any chance? That not everyone uses every word exactly as you do? Because, it would then mean you’d be wrong in “many places?”

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    You are talking about a scientific study. There is no misunderstanding about what the word brandishing means, no matter how much you wish that were the case. There are no dialects involved. Really Bruce, you’re awfully pathetic sometimes.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  “The study you cite states that the majority of DGUs only involve brandishing the weapon. Makes it kind of inconvenient for you doesn’t it?”

                  Still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
                  Most of them involved at most pulling back a coat to display one, and more likely just saying “I have a gun!”
                  Heck, the best burglar alarm I know is a pump-action shotgun being cocked.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Wait, what are you talking about?

                    You have been supporting Jon Lott’s argument that 90+% of people have stopped attacks by simply brandishing their weapon. Now you are saying that is a lie? Can you follow what is going on?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Wait, what are you talking about?”

                      I know, you have trouble following basic english communications…

                      “You have been supporting Jon Lott’s argument that 90+% of people have stopped attacks by simply brandishing their weapon. Now you are saying that is a lie? Can you follow what is going on?”

                      That isn’t Lott’s argument. His argument was that gun owners have used the existence of their firearms, in various methods, to deter (“stop”) attacks… You’re the one who’s still DESPERATELY trying to use the word “brandish” in what appears to be a (poorly executed) attempt to taint ALL 2.5 MILLION gun uses as criminal acts.
                      Yes, I’m calling you a liar for using the word “brandish” after being CONTINUALLY taught better.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Again, you prove that you have no idea what Lott has claimed.

                      “Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that defensive gun use (DGU) is underreported, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.”

                      Attempting to quantify this phenomenon, in the first edition of the book, published in May 1998, Lott wrote that “national surveys” suggested that “98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” In that same paragraph he also wrote that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.” The higher the rate of defensive gun uses that do not end in the attacker being killed or wounded, the easier it is to explain why defensive gun uses are not covered by the media without reference to media bias. Lott cited the figure frequently in the media, including publications like the Wall Street Journal[34] and the Los Angeles Times.[35]

                      In 2002, he repeated the study, and reported that brandishing a weapon was sufficient to stop an attack 95% of the time. Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate and that the majority of similar studies suggest a value between 70 and 80 percent.[36] Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz’s 1994 estimate rises to 92 percent when brandishing and warning shots are added together.”

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Out of a 430+ page book, you have maybe half a dozen uses of a word by an author writing in english, not in legalese, which you’ve been trying to lean on (Still!) to make some failed point about what is and isn’t “brandishing”. If I brandished an english muffin at you, do you think you could get me on breaking some sort of law? That would be an amusing exercise…

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      LOL! Are you saying that importance is determined by how often a word is used? Are you fucking retarded? With your logic, “a” would be the most important word followed closely by “the”. Seriously, how stupid are you?

                      It’s not the book that is important, it’s the survey and other sources used in the book. You know, the survey that you had no idea about? The one you said Kleck redid when his came before Lott’s? The book is there for him to make money. The sources he uses, aka his survey, is where you should be counting his words.

                      Bottom line is that Lott and Kleck both claim that brandishing occurs the vast majority of DGUs.

                      ” you have maybe half a dozen uses of a word by an author writing in english, not in legalese”

                      Really? How do you know this?

                      FYI: there is no difference between the definitions. Brandishing is brandishing.

                      One last thing, can you read this and tell me what it means?

                      Montana MCA 45-3-111:

                      Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs the Troll writes: “Are you fucking retarded?”

                      Ideology aside, you’re an extremely unpleasant person.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      You can spare your fake outrage. Oh, gosh, he used profanity. Should I link the posts where you used it (and then blamed me for your usage of profanity, much like you blamed mark when you used an international comparison)? Hey, hypocrite, what analogy will you think up next to try rationalize your way out of the corner?

                      And why didn’t you come to your friend’s defense by using your dialect theory regarding Kleck and Lott’s usage of brandishing? Rather selfish of you.

                      And did you recognize that Montana law that I linked? It must seem awfully familiar to you, considering you linked it. Not only did you link it, you used it as evidence that brandishing is a crime. Do you not read the material you link? How do you expect people with a working brain not to be outraged to the point of using profanity when confronted with idiots like yourself, using arguments like the ones you do?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You have a reading comprehension problem. I did not express any outrage at all, false or otherwise. I merely expressed that you are an extremely unpleasant person.

                      Here’s you:

                      “Hey, hypocrite [...]”

                      “Rather selfish of you.”

                      “How do you expect people with a working brain not to be outraged to the point of using profanity when confronted with idiots like yourself, using arguments like the ones you do?”

                      (Note that I didn’t call you on your use of profanity … I just called you unpleasant.)

                      Oh, and by the way: Hey, Einstein, you’re the one who is baffled by my arguments. That would tend to suggest that the one with the functioning brain is me, not you. You have zero concept how an atheist can non-hypocritically advise a Christian that the latter is sinning, according to the Bible. It’s just too big a thought to fit into your little head. But you sure do talk big.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      So when you write this:

                      “Babs the Troll writes: “Are you fucking retarded?”

                      Ideology aside, you’re an extremely unpleasant person.”

                      You weren’t responding to my use of profanity? Maybe I should ask you the same question. Are you fucking retarded?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “You have zero concept how an atheist can non-hypocritically advise a Christian that the latter is sinning, according to the Bible.”

                      Now all you have to do is to explain how that has anything to do with you making an argument that you previously said is invalid. Should be interesting. Will you answer with “oh, but everyone knows why that is. it’s so obvious”. That seems to be your new style. Make up bullshit analogies then declare victory. Hahahaha.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Ideology aside, you’re an extremely unpleasant person.”

                      You weren’t responding to my use of profanity? Maybe I should ask you the same question. Are you fucking retarded?”

                      Bruce and FireStarter are very unpleasant and they do not care that they are. I say, let them continue to make asses of themselves. Their labels mean nothing to me.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Their labels mean nothing to me.”
                      Yeah, that’s common among sociopaths.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Pyro, did your argument fizzle out? You never responded.

                      Still waiting for you to explain what this law means:

                      “Montana MCA 45-3-111:

                      Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.”

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “LOL! Are you saying that importance is determined by how often a word is used? Are you fucking retarded? With your logic, “a” would be the most important word followed closely by “the”. Seriously, how stupid are you?”

                      Well, since that’s YOUR logic, don’t stop bashing it if you don’t wanna. Clearly “subject” and “object” were not big hits in the google search of your english education.

                      “It’s not the book that is important, it’s the survey and other sources used in the book. You know, the survey that you had no idea about? The one you said Kleck redid when his came before Lott’s? The book is there for him to make money. The sources he uses, aka his survey, is where you should be counting his words.”

                      Oh, you think the sources were all educated in the LEGAL, rather than English, usage of the word “Brandish”, and therefore are reliable metrics to go off of? As George Carlin would say “Think how dumb the average person is. Now remember that half of them are EVEN DUMBER.”

                      “Bottom line is that Lott and Kleck both claim that brandishing occurs the vast majority of DGUs.”

                      See above.

                      [me]“you have maybe half a dozen uses of a word by an author writing in english, not in legalese”

                      “Really? How do you know this?”

                      Because I can use the “find word” function in my browser. You don’t exactly need to be an IT guy for that. Or did you mean how do I know it’s in English? That’s a good one.

                      “FYI: there is no difference between the definitions. Brandishing is brandishing.
                      One last thing, can you read this and tell me what it means?”

                      I highly doubt anyone can tell you anything, at this point, but yes: I could try. First off, you’re begging the question of what YOU consider to be the truth ever making it to the level of “a definition”, and certainly not one that agreed with a law that you were unable to find for… what has it been now: two weeks?

                      “Montana MCA 45-3-111:
                      Montana approved legislation says simply that brandishing a firearm in self defense is not a crime.”

                      No it fucking doesn’t, and you’re a liar if you claim it does. More likely, you’re simply STILL ignorant, and forgot that some people know how to use google better than you, and find “THE ACTUAL” law, not someone’s interpretation thereof.
                      Text of the cited law:
                      http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/3/45-3-111.htm

                      ” 45-3-111. Openly carrying weapon — display — exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon.
                      (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.
                      (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.

                      History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 332, L. 2009.”

                      That paypal account is still being dangled in front of you if you can read that law and find the word “Brandish” in it, ya damned liar.
                      Fun fact: NOWHERE IN MONTANA TITLE 45. Not at all. Is the word Brandish EVER used. Not this specific part, not the chapter it’s a part of… Not at all.
                      Want to check for yourself?
                      http://leghlngoogle.leg.mt.gov/search?q=brandish&restrict=MCA&btn G=MT+Legislature+Search&site=prod_index&output=xml_no_dtd&client= prod_index&proxystylesheet=prod_index&oe=UTF-8

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Oh, you think the sources were all educated in the LEGAL, rather than English, usage of the word “Brandish”, and therefore are reliable metrics to go off of? As George Carlin would say “Think how dumb the average person is. Now remember that half of them are EVEN DUMBER.””

                      Well, yes, considering Kleck is a criminologist. And yes, considering Jon Lott wrote extensively of the gun laws in each state in his book, and yes, considering both of them published in peer reviewed legal journals, I would think they know better than you do when it comes to using the word brandish properly.

                      Would you mind providing a legal definition of brandishing that isn’t the same as the dictionary definition? You keep claiming that there are two definitions of brandishing with absolutely zero evidence to prove this.

                      “No it fucking doesn’t, and you’re a liar if you claim it does. More likely, you’re simply STILL ignorant, and forgot that some people know how to use google better than you, and find “THE ACTUAL” law, not someone’s interpretation thereof.”

                      It’s not an interpretation. It’s a text book definition of brandishing. Read section 2:

                      ” If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon.”

                      That is brandishing. Drawing or presenting a weapon and threatening the use of force is the definition of brandishing. Did you not know that this was brandishing? Is that why you linked it and claimed it doesn’t say what it clearly does?

                      “Fun fact: NOWHERE IN MONTANA TITLE 45. Not at all. Is the word Brandish EVER used. Not this specific part, not the chapter it’s a part of… Not at all.”

                      Is your argument that since they didn’t use the word brandishing in there, then the actions described are not brandishing? So they can describe brandishing 100%, but if they don’t use the word, it’s not brandishing. Is that your honest argument? Please, tell me it is.

                      Would you like more definitions of brandishing that are the same as the dictionary definition?

                      Bruce was kind enough to provide us with this list:

                      http://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

                      Have at it!

                      “So “brandishing” or “improper exhibition” or “defensive display” or “unlawful display” (or whatever your state and jurisdiction calls it) depends specifically on your state and jurisdiction. Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening.”

                      Then go through and read the laws. Find the similarities? Feel stupid? Good.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Sorry, not done rubbing your nose in the fact that you THOUGHT you were smart enough to pass off bullshit text as a law which you wanted us to believe listed “legal brandishing”, and/or DIDN’T BOTHER to check and see if you were using bullshit.
                      You tried to bluff, you got caught. Take your drubbing. There’s no saving face, and if you were anything like a man you’d apologize, in the aim of being able to move on. But no, you’ve got your claws stuck in TRYING to prove that “brandishing” doesn’t mean what the law says it does, but rather what a criminologist said in passing a few times. Hint: What degree does a criminologist have?
                      Spoiler: Not the same one that anyone who writes laws goes to school for. It’s not a law degree.

                      This is how I feel when I have to explain atheism to christians who insist I’m wrong because of cosmology…

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              “And according to the authors of that study, 90+% of those DGU’s involved brandishing the weapon. Right?”

              No, but displaying it.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “I suspect that I will be referring to this post in the future. So, bookmark.”

        Actually I don’t think anyone will be referring to it.

        • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          truthfully, you don’t think.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Truthfully you can’t read.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Yes, for the last month, I’ve hired a million monkeys with a million keyboards to hide my deep dark secret, that I myself cannot read or write. Damn. Secret outed.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Mark, yes the freedom to kill people. Of course there will be consequences to such an action which is part of living in a free society. I would far rather take my chances in an anarchistic society where the free market operates but government does not.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I think this reply is in the wrong area. At any rate. Some freedoms are at odds with others. Freedom to kill is not a freedom I would covet over the freedoms it costs. I think you are on a head trip like most anarchists.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  To kill is different than ‘to murder’. If attacked, of course you have that right.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Ah, so you’re saying that if you are threatened, you can do the same act lawfully that if not threatened, would be considered illegal.

                    Kind of like brandishing?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “kind of like brandishing?”

                      You mean like how it’s NOT MURDER to kill in self defense? Exactly. It’s NOT BRANDISHING to expose a firearm in a lawful fashion. Exactly!

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ” It’s NOT BRANDISHING to expose a firearm in a lawful fashion.”

                      Sure it is. What else would it be? Homicide is homicide. Legality doesn’t change that. Brandishing is Brandishing. Legality doesn’t change that either. The only thing that the law does is PUNISH illegal brandishing. Just like it PUNISHES illegal homicide.

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, I do find it interesting how someone withyour proclivities can imply that Bruce is irrational. I do not agree with a lot of what Bruce awrites, but he tries to use logic with most of his writing. You would do well to copy him.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce employs fallacies. His favorite is ad hominem.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Mark, yes Bruce does do that quite a bit and justifies it with comments about the frustration of trying to deal with folks like you who refuse to see reason. I think he should not use adhominems but I can relate to the frustration. At some point it is better to just stop repeating the same old lines and go on to other subjects. I think you are intentionally missing the point about government control of who can have weapons being destructive to indlividual liberty. The socialist paradigm depends upon most people readily accepting governmental restraints. Readily available weaponry could threaten that acceptence. So socialists are against individuals beling armed no matter what statistics or common sense dictate.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                A fallacy is a fallacy. If you can’t make a point without one you don’t have a point. He can be frustrated all he wants. But it doesn’t change facts.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Show where I use the ad hominem logical fallacy, or retract your claim. Calling something a “fact” doesn’t make it so.

                  In this case, silence implies retraction, because you are accusing me of wrongdoing. This gives you an obligation to either support it, or retract it.

                  Don’t force me to invent another logical fallacy, the fallacy of enduring silence: fail to support an argument for so long, that you can then make an appeal to history, “but, this proposition has been accepted as true for so long” – except that, what has happened for so long, was deliberate silence in the face of criticism. (So, in particular, this new fallacy is logically distinct from the appeal to history, in which there actually *was* a history of the proposition at issue.)

                  Oh wait, too late, I already did. But, of course, it doesn’t count, you will argue, along the lines of “because no thought not originally held by Aristotle could possibly be valid.” Appeal to authority. (“You are wrong because Aristotle didn’t say it,” or similar such. “It’s not on my list of valid fallacies.”)

                  (That’s kind of funny – using a logical fallacy to argue against the validity of newly invented logical fallacies. There ought to be a special place in logical hell for doing that.)

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    “Ad hominem attacks are hardly ever used plainly, and people who do are generally trolls who want to provoke people to fight. These are often partnered with not even responding to the person’s post, using arguments that make no sense, and thus have never been heard of, then mocking their opponent when they fail to find a rebuttal”

                    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

                    “An ad hominem argument occurs when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself. It is therefore a special case of the broader category of formal logical fallacies, the non sequitur, in which the conclusion urged, e.g. that the disputant is incorrect, does not follow from the premise asserted, e.g. that the disputant is a dick.[1] Even if the ad hominem attack is true, e.g. the disputant really is a dick, that fact has no bearing on whether the disputant’s argument is logically sound.”

                    Pick nearly any recent reply from you to either Basbooshka or me. The fact that you do this to both your opponents is telling.

                    Your silence will suffice as an apology and a retraction.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, you have claimed your silence is never an admission of wrongness. You’ll have to get Babs to explain why claiming this of me is hypocritical on your part. Unless, of course, he holds a double standard, in which case he won’t. By the way, he won’t.

                      Second, my use of ad hominem attacks does not amount to my use of ad hominem logical fallacies. You have accused me of using them as fallacies, and my response is, those attacks were not the (il-)logical basis for my refutations of your posts. You even admitted that the argument “My position is correct, because of reasons x, y and/or z, and besides, you’re ugly” was _not_ ad hominem. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-23/#comment-669292 So you are hanged by your own words.

                      You have yet to furnish a single example of my use of the ad hominem logical fallacy, which I haven’t dismissed. Neither has pyro, by the way. Even though you (both) claim I do it a lot.

                      So, I stand on my position, and leave it to you to prove I repeatedly use the _fallacy_, or retract your claim. My use of incidental ad hominems has no more bearing on my logical position than it does on yours, or Babs’s for that matter. Babs is downright abusive, in fact. But of course I don’t expect you to ever call out Babs’s behavior, because you have a strong double standard there. (Oh, sorry, was that another ad hominem? Well, you can simply establish that by showing how you take him to task just as often as you take me to task, for the same offenses. Unless, of course, you *can’t* establish it, because you never take him to task, which would then establish that stating you have double standards is a fact, rather than a personal attack.)

                      So, in summary, go to hell.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “My use of incidental ad hominems has no more bearing on my logical position than it does on yours,”

                      Your ad hominems are intended to discredit my arguments by claiming I am a troll. The same goes for Babooshka and you labeling him.

                      Your use of ad hominem is focused on framing my logical position. That in turn undermines yours.

                      Your silence on this will be sufficient as an apology and admission of guilt.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Those assertions are made *in addition* to logical arguments. So they do not represent logical fallacies. I called neither you nor Babs trolls until it was proven. You can go back and see the proof, and challenge it if you can.

                      I note that you have made no response to my argument that you called *me* intellectually dishonest, while remaining silent in the face of proof that Babs is a plagiarist, one of the worst intellectual crimes there is. “Your silence implies admission of guilt and apology.”

                      By the way, beyond your third use of “your silence implies admission of guilt and apology” is hereby preempted and declared invalid. So you have one more use remaining to employ. So far I have not remained silent, and furthermore, you have not refuted my answers up until now. So, I claim, with logic and evidence, and nor merely, or even not at all, as an ad hominem, that you are merely trolling, because, you are not responding to substantive points I am making. (Such as the fact of Babs’s plagiarism and your silence about it.)

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By the way: “Bruce and FireStarter are very unpleasant and they do not care that they are. I say, let them continue to make asses of themselves. *Their labels mean nothing to me.*” http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-23/#comment-663307

                      “*Your ad hominems are intended to discredit my arguments by claiming I am a troll. The same goes for Babooshka and you labeling him.*”

                      So, do the labels mean anything or do they not? You either lied in one post, or in the other. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-23/#comment-670288

                      Lying is dishonest. Here’s yet another example.

                      Did I mention that you do it a lot? Yes. Yes, I did.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Whoops, I mislocated a citation. Both citations are of Mark The Troll’s own words, which are quoted, and the key texts are set inside of asterisks. Those correspond to the two links, one of which was mistakenly placed after the following paragraph after where it was intended.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Those assertions are made *in addition* to logical arguments.”

                      Your additional assertions to not validate your logical arguments, nor do they refute mine. That is the point of the ad hominem usage. If your additional assertion is pointless then why use it?

                      I will assume that any additional responses to this constitutes an admission of guilt and an apology.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Neither has pyro, by the way. Even though you (both) claim I do it a lot.”

                      Somewhere there must be wires crossed, because I don’t recall either saying this, or being challenged to prove it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “So, do the labels mean anything or do they not? ”

                      They may influence those reading your missives but they mean nothing to me, I know I’m right. Someone was commenting on your logic to which I pointed out factors such as your use of ad hominem, specifically your accusation that my posts primary motivation is trolling.

                      “Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of your opponent’s arguments.”

                      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

                      So no, I’m not lying. I accept your apology and retraction of accusations.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Your silence will suffice as an apology and a retraction.”

                      “I will assume that any additional responses to this constitutes an admission of guilt and an apology.”

                      Wow, you’re a FRIGGIN GENIUS! Nobody has EVER thought of saying THAT!
                      CHECKMATE, Atheists!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Bruce, thank you for your retraction.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll: I retract nothing and apologize for nothing.

                      You can go to hell with your “any response will be taken as an apology and a retraction.”

                      You can either refute my points, or you can’t. You still haven’t provided many specific examples of my use of the ad hominem logical fallacy, and indeed your own words, already cited, hang you.

                      Pyro: Mea Culpa! My apologies. It was Fritz, not you, who agreed with Mark that I use the ad hominem fallacy “a lot.”

                      Fritz: Here is your quote, which I mistakenly misattributed to Pyro: “Mark, yes Bruce does do that quite a bit and justifies it with comments about the frustration of trying to deal with folks like you who refuse to see reason. I think he should not use adhominems but I can relate to the frustration.” http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-st atistics/comment-page-23/#comment-668823

                      I hereby challenge you to cite multiple examples of my use of the ad hominem _fallacy_ (as opposed to simple attacks). Noting, as Mark has already conceded, that, for example,

                      “My position is correct *because* you are ugly” does amount to such a logical fallacy

                      but

                      “My position is correct because of x,y and/or z, and besides, you’re ugly” is not an ad hominem logical fallacy (Mark’s admission) because the logical part resides in x, y and/or z, which is independent of the “ugly” comment at the end.

                      I might well do the latter, but I believe I don’t do the former, and only the former of these constitutes a formal logical fallacy.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “”My position is correct *because* you are ugly” does amount to such a logical fallacy”

                      That is not what you are implying. What you are implying has nothing to do with your position.

                      “Marks position is incorrect *because* Mark is a troll. Do you have another reason for using “troll” in the context of a discussion list? Seems like the two are intertwined in the forum and subject matter.

                      Anyway, thanks for retracting.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      To repeat myself, I have retracted nothing presented to you. You’re just playing a childish game.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I understand Bruce’s argument but it’s a slippery slope argument. When he loses on that one it’s on to self defense. When he loses on that one he punts and changes the subject.

                Let me ask you. Would you ever hand a loaded gun to a to a child?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Nice dodge. If a cougar were attacking you’d hand a gun to an 11 year-old rather than shoot it yourself.

                    What if the kid was 5? Care to answer whether a child of 5 should be handed a loaded gun while not being attacked by a cougar or space aliens?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Funny, you are quick to charge me with slippery slopes. What about when you do it? Pyro was asked if he’d give a child a gun, and he gave you a yes. Now this. What next, a newborn?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      No, I’ll stop at a 5 year old. A 5 year old is still a child. Care to answer the question? Would you Hans a loaded gun to a 5 year old. Answer, or are you chicken?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Pyro was asked if he’d give a child a gun, and he gave you a yes.”

                      I didn’t ask him if he’d hand a gun to a girl who shot a cougar. I asked if he’d hand a gun to a child, not a young girl with hunting experience.

                      No slippery slope for you to fall back on.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      But, there are young children with hunting experience. Not all kids are equal. I suspect there are some 5-year-olds I’d be happy to hand loaded guns to. There are also 20-, 30- and 40-year-old adults who I would never hand a gun to, loaded or unloaded.

                      Here’s one. (This should give you some conniptions!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMAi_YurbYA

                      Unlike the law, with its black-and-white artificial and arbitrary age cutoffs, I believe in the application of judgement and good sense. Something the law can’t do.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Still dodging the question. Random 5 year old child. Would you hand them a loaded gun?

                      “I believe in the application of judgement and good sense.”

                      Is it good sense to sell a gun to an illegal alien? How about a husband convicted of assault on his wife? Prisoners, should they have guns for self defense?

                      “Something the law can’t do.”

                      Apparently parents can’t either. Good sense seems to be uneven and in short supply.

                      http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      The age is a red herring. A random 5-year-old? No. A random adult? No. I only hand guns to people I know and trust.

                      “Is it good sense to sell a gun to an illegal alien?”

                      Of course not. Such a person should be arrested and deported.

                      “How about a husband convicted of assault on his wife?”

                      Depends on the assault. Throwing a bowl of cereal at the wall? That sort of action can get someone convicted of domestic violence, even if he never laid a hand on her. But then, such is the arbitrary, capricious and common-sense-less law. Then again, the injustices of the legal system against men, and towards women, is legendary.

                      “Prisoners, should they have guns for self defense?”

                      Nope, although they should also be being protected by their keepers. In other words, prison guards should be criminally charged for neglect if they allow prisoners to be hurt on their watch, because the guards *are responsible* for the safety of the prisoners, and this is what responsibility means. The fact that stories of prison rape are so common, or even joked about by police (or, in anti-gun ads) that something is obviously seriously amiss in the prison system.

                      Project Exile Promotes Prison Rape: http://www.freecolorado.com/2001/05/exile.html

                      So, Mark, do *you* support prison rape as an extrajudicial punishment for firearms violations?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “A random 5-year-old? No.”

                      Of course not, see, no red herring. Most 5 year olds are going to be random to you.

                      “A random adult? No.”

                      Yet transactions go on every day where a random person is sold a gun, people who may be illegal aliens, escaped convicts, wife abusers, or insane people. Seems sensible to not hand these people a gun, just as we don’t hand a gun to a child.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You’re changing the subject. *You* asked *me* if I would hand a gun to a random 5-year-old, and my answer is that age is a red herring, I wouldn’t hand a gun to such a child *nor* to a random adult. Yet you claim that age is not a red herring, and then change the subject to gun dealers and (implied) make a case for background checks.

                      That’s dishonest. (Surprise!)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’re changing the subject. *You* asked *me* if I would hand a gun to a random 5-year-old, and my answer is that age is a red herring, I wouldn’t hand a gun to such a child *nor* to a random adult.”

                      Since there was dodging of the question the age was to insure that certain people wouldn’t start talking about 19 year old “children”. You don’t know what a red herring or a slippery slope is yet you are trying to employ those.

                      That’s dishonest (surprise!)

                      “Yet you claim that age is not a red herring, and then change the subject to gun dealers and (implied) make a case for background checks.”

                      My intent was to direct the conversation to said background checks. The subject being “who should not be handed a gun”. Common sense says there are lots of things we don’t trust to children because of their incapacity to handle them.

                      “That’s dishonest. (Surprise!)”

                      Nope, it’s my subject and has been all along. Surprise!

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      You asked if I’d give a gun to a child. Was she not a child? Not too young for you? Would you hit it?

                      But would *I* shoot a cougar? Well gosh, you’d probably relish the chance to throw me in a cage since I *don’t* have a permit for them… I’m gonna say I’d have done exactly what he did.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You asked if I’d give a gun to a child. Was she not a child? Not too young for you? Would you hit it?
                      But would *I* shoot a cougar? Well gosh, you’d probably relish the chance to throw me in a cage since I *don’t* have a permit for them… I’m gonna say I’d have done exactly what he did.”

                      Disingenuous. Would you hand a gun to a random 5 year old child? If not, why not?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark, the only people who consider 19-year-olds children is gun grabbers who seek to greatly inflate the “kids killed by guns” number by including teenagers and even young adults, up to age 19 or even 25 in some cases, while attaching the statistic to the picture of a four-year-old. By far the vast majority of these “kids” are teenage gang members engaged in criminal activities. Of course, including adolescents and even young adults in a statistic labeled “kids” is just plain deceptive, but then again, we have to know whom we are dealing with.

                      In any case, you can rest assured that I don’t consider 19-year-olds “children.” Although, I do consider 11-year-old girls “children,” though apparently you do not, when it suits you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “In any case, you can rest assured that I don’t consider 19-year-olds “children.” Although, I do consider 11-year-old girls “children,” though apparently you do not, when it suits you.”

                      I don’t consider the cougar shooting child that pyro cited as an answer to the question “would you hand a loaded gun to a child”. I consider it a dodge of answering the question by answering a different one which is “has a child ever deserved to have a gun because they were demonstrably able to use one effectively.” See, I didn’t ask that question.

                      You should read the book “thinking, fast and slow” so you can understand why this was a mistake.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll writes: “I don’t consider the cougar shooting child that pyro cited as an answer to the question “would you hand a loaded gun to a child”. I consider it a dodge of answering the question by answering a different one which is “has a child ever deserved to have a gun because they were demonstrably able to use one effectively.” See, I didn’t ask that question.”

                      You also didn’t ask the question, “Excluding trained and/or trustworthy children, would you hand a loaded gun to a child?” Not *any* child, *a* child. Pyro answered affirmatively, and correctly. You lose.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      And I clarified the constraints to remove that disingenuous response. You not the other hand correctly identified that children, in the broadest sense and with some exceptions should not have guns.

                      http://www.parents.com/kids/safety/guns-within-reach/

                      It is clear that if we can use common sense to deny certain children guns we can do the same for so-called adults.

                      This is not a competition.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Disingenuous. Would you hand a gun to a random 5 year old child? If not, why not?”

                      No, and for the same reason I wouldn’t give a gun to a random adult on the street. Firstly, I’d be liable for anything they did with it, through lack of character familiarity. Secondly, that’s ANOTHER excuse for you to throw me in a cage. But how about a NON-random child? I was shooting at a club since 8th grade, and before that as a boy scout. My brother was in a high school rifle team which shot with AR-15s, competed nationally, and regularly outshot the Army, Navy, and Air Force competitive teams (Though it always irked them that the Marines seemed to beat them by just a bit, every year) at Camp Perry. So yes, there is a long list of “Children” I would handily turn over a firearm to, with no qualms… So shall we discus why you’d want me to give a firearm to a “random” child?

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  LOL! Great answer Pyro!

                  Mark: From the article: “His daughter had a tag to hunt cougars and shot the animal.” So, what we have here is that The State basically handed a loaded gun to this child, and said, “Go get ‘em!” I don’t know what the bag limit on her tag was, if it even had a bag limit. Maybe it didn’t – maybe what The State was telling her was, “Here’s a loaded gun, get as many of those things as you can!”

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Disingenuous answer actually.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      In what way?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Answer this question and I’ll explain.

                      Should a child be immunized against measles?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Should? Yes, broadly. Is there a specific reason not to? Then possibly not, depending on the reason.

                      But, *must* the child be immunized from measles, at pain of taking the child away from the parents if they refuse, or worse, jailing the parents if they refuse? No, definitely and absolutely not. Does that mean I think the decision should be up to the parents, and not the government? Yes, although I also believe that the case could successfully be made to the overwhelmingly vast majority of parents that they would agree to have their children immunized.

                      Because measles is (1) contagious (unlike guns), so there is a strong societal benefit to having “everyone”, or at least almost everyone, be immune, namely, that it prevents the spread because there are too few susceptible individuals, and (2) there is a good preventative treatment, namely, said immunization, that brings or enables few to zero harmful side effects or detrimental consequences if it is employed, and even if it is broadly or even universally employed. (Unlike, say, background checks, which risk confiscations, which *are* happening today, and then subsequently genocide if the 4473s fall into evil hands, the latter which indeed may already be happening today.)

                      But, broadly, yes they should be immunized from measles.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Should? Yes, broadly. Is there a specific reason not to? Then possibly not, depending on the reason.”

                      Exactly. That is why when I asked if a child should be handed a loaded gun and Firestarter said this one (11 year old girl) he was being disingenuous. I didn’t ask that the question he answered.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Exactly. That is why when I asked if a child should be handed a loaded gun and Firestarter said this one (11 year old girl) he was being disingenuous. I didn’t ask that the question he answered.”
                      You didn’t REALIZE that you asked the question that I answered. You asked if I’d give a gun to a child. I said I would, and showed you a child that I’d give a gun to.

                      You realized this yourself, of course, since you chimed in with “random” after that, patching the hole in your query, which we’ve both also answered in the interim.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes, exploiting what you saw as a hole was disingenuous. You do it a lot.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yes, exploiting what you saw as a hole was disingenuous. You do it a lot.”

                      You think it’s MY fault you asked the wrong question… Do you also think it’s my fault the obvious “traps” you keep setting for us don’t go off the way you intended?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll writes: “Yes, exploiting what you saw as a hole was disingenuous. You do it a lot.”

                      That is a truly astonishing answer. Incredible.

                      How are we to know, in principle, when a perceived hole in your argument or question is merely a failure on your part to patch up the question correctly, so we “disingenuously” take advantage of you by exploiting it, vs. when the perceived hole arises from a fundamental error in your thinking, which then leads to our being able to present an answer that actually changes your mind from the path you are on, to the path of freedom and self-determination? Is there like some kind of light or buzzer that goes off, which enables us to legitimately correct errors in your thinking, without falling into the trap of exploiting a mere oversight or carelessness on your part? Or what?

                      What, exactly, do you expect debate opponents, whether they use logic or not, to do other than exploit perceived weaknesses (“holes”) in other’s positions?

                      Do you understand how unfair it makes you seem, but charging Pyro with the “How dare you!!” gambit, because he attempted to answer a question that you asked? What, exactly, are you expecting here? That we should all roll over, and concede your greater wisdom and enlightenment, because, after ignoring all the flaws in your arguments, the rest is pure perfection?

                      I mean, what gives?

                      By the way, your response to my answer about measles was very disappointing. I guess my expectations were too high. Immunizations are very different from giving guns to people. For one thing, kids get immunized in schools, but not so many of them receive and kind of training about guns in schools. And I don’t mean marksmanship, I mean even Eddie Eagle. Why did the NRA have to think of that? Why isn’t gun safety (by which I mean real gun safety, not gun-prohibitions-that-we’ll-call-gun- safety-because-some-low-information- people-might-get-fooled) taught in schools, and why hasn’t it been taught for generations? Why is homeschooling so disparaged and criticized, yet society *expects* that kids will be taught these things by their parents? If at all? Even though the matter is of such vital national importance that the President talks about ways to reduce the problem, by placing more hoops for people like me to have to jump through?

                      It just doesn’t make sense. Within the stated narrative, that is. If the narrative is altered, then it makes perfect sense: kids are to be kept ignorant and fearful of guns, so that when they grow up to become voters, they vote “correctly” for politicians and ballot initiatives that advance the disarmament objective. I’m sure this is all a coincidence, though. Because the elites never, ever, attempt to conceal their motives. And you’re being perfectly level with us, too. Which is why you hardly ever lie, and why you don’t attack us when we find holes in your arguments.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Don’t forget, “Eddie Eagle” is to “don’t ever touch a gun or you’ll die” what sex-ed is to “abstinence education”.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Yes. your word smithing is your fault. You knew what I was asking and deliberately answered a different question.

                      If I had asked you if children should be given poison I’m sure neither of you would have searched for instances where administering small doses of a specific kind to combat disease occurred.

                      You’ve both failed to answer honestly. There’s a reason we keep loaded guns out of children’s hands and you are trying to dodge an honest answer. Why do people deny most children the right to a firearm, self defense, and the ability to fight tyranny?

                      Let the word smithing begin again.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, you “forgot” to answer my question about how, in principle, you expect us to tell the difference between an accidental hole in your narrative, which we might “dishonestly exploit” vs. a legitimate gap in your understanding that we could use to change your mind. Plus, what it is you expect from us, being adversaries. Do you plead innocent to *ever* exploiting holes in anything we say? (Or, are you hypocrite here too?)

                      Second, it is telling that you continue to call us dishonest for *answering one of your questions* in a way you hadn’t intended, while you continue to remain silent on the fact of Babs’s plagiarism, one of the highest crimes in academic circles. It would certainly seem, I submit, that any discussion of why this might be, would get me branded as making ad hominems, or questioning your motives, or who knows what else. But the fact remains that you haven’t even mentioned it, let alone criticized him for it. No, your double standard runs deep here, and it appears to expose you.

                      In contrast to your steadfast silence about Babs’s wrongdoing, I could offer that I have argued with Huap and Cav about not attacking the draft dodgers, with Doug about several things, including a big one at the beginning, with Fritz about accusations of the ad hominem fallacy, and whether laws banning guns were more or less bad that laws mandating gun ownership. I even accidentally accused Pyro of that, but apologized and retracted that claim, when I discovered it was actually Fritz. So, I submit my behavior as that of an independent, free thinking person who can and does have disagreements with anyone, including those “on my side.” Besides myself, others here get into arguments with each other also. I submit that is natural and to be expected.

                      But, in strong contrast, you and Babs, on the other hand, never seem to get into disagreements, and indeed, never even mention the other’s wrongdoing. It appears so blatant that questioning (both of) your motives is highly appropriate, but then again, it’s a formal logical fallacy, so the topic appears to have an “easy defense” – don’t go there. Why should it be against the rules to comment on your unusual behavior and telling double standard? It’s telling something, all right, and I consider it entirely appropriate to speak the tell aloud. It might not be logical from the standpoint of the subject matter at hand (guns and gun laws) because, instead, the subject matter is YOU, but it would appear entirely fair game, especially since you criticize me for calling you a troll. Which I consider to have proven long ago.

                      Similarly, Babs never takes you to task either. So the charge applies to him as well: Whence the double standard? I might add that, whether he cites it or not, posting material from GovernmentIsGood.com doesn’t exactly comport with the mindset of people on an *anarchist* forum. Hmm, but we can’t think, let alone speak aloud “troll” though. That would be ad hominem, right? We’re supposed to tolerate intentionally hostile and abusive plagiarists with equanimity, right? And give his (or, your) questions all the care and consideration that we would of a neutral or even an adversary who came here without any other agenda, other than a differing opinion and an open mind? Note that both of you have been here for about a year. What are you trying to accomplish?

                      So, once more, you attack Pyro and I about “dishonestly” answering your question(!) while you remain silent about Babs’s blatant plagiarism. You complain that we found a tiny hole in your question, no fair! Yet your own position is exhibiting a hole big enough for a planet to pass through. What gives? I think I know the answer, but I have been advised that giving it is ad hominem. Which I’m not supposed to do, because you have upheld the highest standards of propriety in this debate? Never once using a logical fallacy, let alone making outright lies? Isn’t that right, Mark The Troll? (Whoops.)

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Incidentally, in a high school debate, the topic is given by the moderator. That is the topic. What motivates the participants is officially out-of-bounds, so questioning motives is illegal. But here, in the real world, what motivates people is very much legal to consider and discuss. What if you are an enemy spy, or disinformation agent? This is the real world, not a high school debate. There is evidence you (Mark) do not come here with clean hands. Your motives are fair game (as are mine), contrary to anything Aristotle may have said. Elections are not decided by logic. Logic is only part of the question. The fact that questioning motives is a logical fallacy does not mean it isn’t important to do, or try to do, in some situations. When the police take suspects in for questioning, their motives are very much questioned, and the officers aren’t much impressed by a response of “Logical fallacy! You’re questioning my motives!” But, the suspects aren’t in a logical debate, they’re being questioned about a crime. You, Mark The Troll, are attempting to deny civil rights of American citizens, by garnering support to enact incremental infringements on a right that some of us deeply value. Plus, it appears that you are conspiring with Babs The Troll to accomplish this objective. Conspiracy to deny civil rights is a federal crime. You are a suspect these parts, and so you can expect to face hostile questioning. Especially including questioning your motives.

                      How do you plead?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “How do you plead?”

                      Not playing your game.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What game are you playing, then? You call out Pyro and I for “dishonestly” answering your question, but you *still* haven’t even mentioned Babs’s plagiarism.

                      It’s telling. And please, do tell.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yes. your word smithing is your fault. You knew what I was asking and deliberately answered a different question.

                      If I had asked you if children should be given poison I’m sure neither of you would have searched for instances where administering small doses of a specific kind to combat disease occurred.”

                      No, I wouldn’t have to search, I live in Arizona where the answer is always and immediately “Rattlesnake venom”. I just don’t like people who are stupid enough to presume you can impose a “one size fits all” determination on people, before they bother to read ‘Harrison Bergeron’.

                      “You’ve both failed to answer honestly. There’s a reason we keep loaded guns out of children’s hands and you are trying to dodge an honest answer. Why do people deny most children the right to a firearm, self defense, and the ability to fight tyranny?”

                      Again with wanting to impose a single answer, “one size fits all”… I know why DEMOCRATS deny their children the right to effective self-defense, and it ranges from simple hoplophobia to utopian thinking, with stops on the way for shortsightedness, leading to a mythical worship of the power of the gun, which precedes many of these spree-killings. The ones that almost never seem to come from a person raised in a firearm-friendly environment? I’d make an exception for Lee Harvey Oswald, but only a partial one. While it’s claimed he’s a marxist, he had opportunity to learn respect for the firearm in the Marines… But failed to do so.

                      How do you claim that “people” (Citation needed: who?) deny “most children” (Citation needed) the right (thank you) to a firearm?

                      “Let the word smithing begin again.”

                      most educated people just call it “writing”.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I wasn’t asking about social equality. Your failure to answer the question is intellectually dishonest. That’s the same thing Bruce does. Read “Thinking, Fast and Slow” to understand where your reply is in error.

                      Your rejoinder concerning children of Democrats further emphasizes your intellectual dishonesty.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Again:

                      First, you “forgot” to answer my question about how, in principle, you expect us to tell the difference between an accidental hole in your narrative, which we might “dishonestly exploit” vs. a legitimate gap in your understanding that we could use to change your mind. Plus, what it is you expect from us, being adversaries. Do you plead innocent to *ever* exploiting holes in anything we say? (Or, are you hypocrite here too?)

                      Second, it is telling that you continue to call us dishonest for *answering one of your questions* in a way you hadn’t intended, while you continue to remain silent on the fact of Babs’s plagiarism, one of the highest crimes in academic circles. It would certainly seem, I submit, that any discussion of why this might be, would get me branded as making ad hominems, or questioning your motives, or who knows what else. But the fact remains that you haven’t even mentioned it, let alone criticized him for it. No, your double standard runs deep here, and it appears to expose you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Second, it is telling that you continue to call us dishonest for *answering one of your questions* in a way you hadn’t intended”

                      Yes, that is one definition of intellectual dishonesty.

                      I have no obligation to address issues you have with others in this discussion.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Do *you* have any issue, whatsoever, with plagiarism? Apparently not. So I submit you are in no position whatsoever to opine about anyone else’s intellectual dishonesty, if such an act is of zero concern to you. Because doing so would be like a cop painstakingly filling out a parking ticket for the car parked next to the plain-as-day getaway vehicle, itself calmly waiting there while the bank is being obviously and conspicuously robbed. There is no doubt that the car is the getaway vehicle, and that the bank is being robbed, but you have important things to do, namely, write this car a parking ticket *because it is **!illegally parked!** which is **against the law**!!

                      It amounts to a gigantic double standard on your part.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Well, well, well. It just so happens that the getaway vehicle is being driven by YOUR COUSIN! What an astonishing coincidence! I’m sure that has *nothing* to do with the fact that you will let it get away, while you write a parking ticket for someone who happened to embarrass you at a town hall meeting last week.

                      Protecting and serving, as always. Not to mention equal protection under the law, and all that.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Actually, and this response applies to both of you, I do not think so.

              There is a difference between

              “My position is arguably correct *because* you are ugly, which automatically makes you wrong.”

              and

              “My position is arguably correct *because* of x, y, and/or z, *plus*, I’d just like to mention for the record that you are ugly.”

              Only the first contains the logical fallacy of ad hominem. At worst, I believe I only do the second. But giving opinions about Mark or Babs is never the logical basis for my arguments against them.

              But, for example, when Babs writes “Feel stupid? Good.” That’s just plain ugly. Maggots wriggling around in puss-oozing boils on an ogre’s face ugly. It says a lot more about Babs than it says about anyone else, and my calling attention to it does not amount to a logical fallacy on my part, because it isn’t the basis for any of my arguments.

              Since you both claim that I do this “a lot” I challenge you both to show multiple examples where I do employ ad hominem as a logical fallacy, “My position, x, is correct *because* you are ugly” sorts of cases.

              Or retract the charge.

              Incidentally, Mark, I claim that you routinely use logical fallacies, and your favorite is the straw man. I call them out as they happen. Although your second favorite is the outright lie, a close cousin of the straw man.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                “Of course you can expect consequences if you do any such acts, but, then again, you could expect them in any other society, including one lacking a central government with uniformed agents tasked with enforcing the laws. It doesn’t take an agent of The State to shoot you dead, because you’re killing people. Armed citizens would be enough. Somehow, though, you don’t seem to be able to grasp that whatever police officers, empowered by The State, can do, could also be done by ordinary citizens, absent any central government, who rise to the occasion of unusual or dangerous situations, merely by taking appropriate actions if and when such situations present themselves. This incredible circumstance, people rising to meet unexpected challenges by their own presence of mind and initiative, absent agents of the government, is called by people such as yourself, “anarchy.” It is, apparently, to be greatly feared and opposed, by people such as yourself.”

                We had just such an incident,a few decades back in a nearby community,where a local nut job was shooting up a bar,and the cops refused to respond,and local armed citizens handled it.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “Of course you can expect consequences if you do any such acts, but, then again, you could expect them in any other society, including one lacking a central government with uniformed agents tasked with enforcing the laws. It doesn’t take an agent of The State to shoot you dead, because you’re killing people. Armed citizens would be enough. Somehow, though, you don’t seem to be able to grasp that whatever police officers, empowered by The State, can do, could also be done by ordinary citizens, absent any central government, who rise to the occasion of unusual or dangerous situations, merely by taking appropriate actions if and when such situations present themselves.”

                I hope you are happy in your guilty until found dead legal system.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  Mark The Troll writes: “I hope you are happy in your guilty until found dead legal system.”

                  First, what I wrote was: “Since I will be dealing in hypotheticals, I don’t expect Mark or Babs to follow it, therefore, I explicitly am requesting their silence. I’m sure they can take it incorrectly one way or another, and I don’t desire the burden of attempting to correct them, especially in light of their ability to miss the point, with rudeness and even abusiveness.”

                  Taken incorrectly: check.
                  Don’t desire burden of attempting to correct them: check
                  In light of their ability to miss point: check
                  Rudeness: Check

                  So, first, this is not “my” legal system, it is a hypothetical example to clarify what is, and what is not, meant by laws.

                  Second, I would not want to live in such a system, there are many things wrong with it. So, you offer a straw man by implying that it is equal to my wishes. (As usual.)

                  Third, I explicitly stated that the example was not intended for you, but rather for Fritz and Pyro. You can’t even afford the courtesy of butting out of someone else’s conversation when asked.

                  Fourth, I pretty much nailed your ability to miss the point, with rudeness. Yay me.

                  But fifth, it tends to confirm rather than disprove, as if any more confirmation were necessary, that you are a troll.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    First, what I wrote was: “Since I will be dealing in hypotheticals, I don’t expect Mark or Babs to follow it, therefore, I explicitly am requesting their silence. I’m sure they can take it incorrectly one way or another, and I don’t desire the burden of attempting to correct them, especially in light of their ability to miss the point, with rudeness and even abusiveness.”

                    “Taken incorrectly: check.
                    desire burden of attempting to correct them: check
                    In light of their ability to miss point: check
                    Rudeness: Check”
                    I don’t care: Check

                    “So, first, this is not “my” legal system, it is a hypothetical example to clarify what is, and what is not, meant by laws.”

                    It is the one you proposed so you own it unless you identify whose it is. Sorry but you gave the example, you own it.

                    “Second, I would not want to live in such a system, there are many things wrong with it. So, you offer a straw man by implying that it is equal to my wishes. (As usual.)”

                    The straw man is of your construct.

                    “Third, I explicitly stated that the example was not intended for you, but rather for Fritz and Pyro. You can’t even afford the courtesy of butting out of someone else’s conversation when asked.”

                    See above.

                    “Fourth, I pretty much nailed your ability to miss the point, with rudeness. Yay me.”

                    Not really.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““[me]So, first, this is not “my” legal system, it is a hypothetical example to clarify what is, and what is not, meant by laws.”

                      “It is the one you proposed so you own it unless you identify whose it is. Sorry but you gave the example, you own it.”

                      I only own it to the extent that this hypothetical society engages in use of force, without laws, police officers, or The State. The example was meant to explore Fritz’s and Pyro’s apparent difference regarding the meaning of “law” and “use of force.”

                      It was *not* meant as a suggestion of how others should live, or how I wish to live, or something I necessarily wish to bring about. I am not representing that I would be happy in such a system; I’m not even representing that I would want to try to create it. So, your comment “I hope you are happy in your guilty until found dead legal system” shows, as I expected, that you missed the point of the example, and that I am now tediously attempting to clarify. Which I didn’t want to do. And even said so. So, yes, it’s rude of you to intrude. After all.

                      One thing that intelligent people are able to do is appreciate the relevant point of a thought experiment, and think about that, without drawing all sorts of irrelevant conclusions instead.

                      There was a brilliant thought experiment about whether heavy things fell more quickly or at the same speed as lighter objects. It goes like this: Suppose heavier things fell more rapidly. Then tie a small rock to a big rock. On the one hand, the big one should fall faster, but the light one, falling more slowly, should tug back at the big one, because it’s lighter and doesn’t fall as fast. But on the other hand, the two rocks tied together weigh even more than the heavy one alone, so the combination should fall even faster than just the heavy one alone. So, which is it? That’s a good thought experiment, but your statement about “I hope you are happy in your guilty until found dead legal system” is like pointing out that the rope tying the rocks together would have air resistance, or that dropping rocks can threaten delicate ecosystems, or other such chaff. What knot was used to tie the rocks? How long is the connecting rope? Is there a lot of left-over rope on the other side of the knots? Wouldn’t that bring extra air resistance? Plus, how big are the knots? Could the rocks slip out of the knots? Etc. Such arguments entirely miss the point of the thought experiment. Just as you have done, and were predicted to do, in my thought experiment of a land with distributed morality police. You zoom in on irrelevant details, and then imply something is wrong with me because I “own” the example, as if I endorse it and its consequences. Not the point. But, another trolling example from you. (Following a consistent pattern.)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “There was a brilliant thought experiment about whether heavy things fell more quickly or at the same speed as lighter objects. It goes like this: Suppose heavier things fell more rapidly. Then tie a small rock to a big rock. On the one hand, the big one should fall faster, but the light one, falling more slowly, should tug back at the big one, because it’s lighter and doesn’t fall as fast. But on the other hand, the two rocks tied together weigh even more than the heavy one alone, so the combination should fall even faster than just the heavy one alone. So, which is it? ”

                      You find this “thought experiment” brilliant? Are you kidding? It doesn’t even make any sense.

                      “So, which is it?”

                      Which is what? They fall at the same speed because they are tied together. How is this an experiment? Yea, very brilliant, I agree. How long did you spend coming up with this brilliant thought experiment?

                      “Such arguments entirely miss the point of the thought experiment.”

                      There was a point?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Dear Babs, the Fucking Moron Plagiarist Troll:

                      The thought experiment was due to Galileo. http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Galileo's_Thought_Exp eriments

                      That you not only don’t recognize it, but that you admit you can’t comprehend it, puts to rest any thoughts anyone might have ever had about your intelligence. You have pounded in the last nail of proof showing a decided lack of it. Now we can plainly see the reason you can’t follow analogies, or figure out what “except” or “oxymoron” or “percentage” means. You can’t even follow a simple, but brilliant, thought experiment.

                      Here is what you had to say about it, for all to see once again:

                      “You find this “thought experiment” brilliant? Are you kidding? It doesn’t even make any sense.”

                      And with this, you dismiss Galileo.

                      Go back to 4chan where you belong.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “That you not only don’t recognize it, but that you admit you can’t comprehend it, puts to rest any thoughts anyone might have ever had about your intelligence. ”

                      I don’t much about 16th century philosophers. You will have to forgive me for not having unlimited knowledge. But to say I can’t comprehend it makes you look incredibly stupid since the answer I gave, that both weights would fall at the same speed, was indeed the correct one. It is very simple to come to this conclusion and it’s the only possible one to come to. It is entirely obvious that things that are bound will travel at the same speed. Just because Galileo thought about this doesn’t make it special. I’m sure he pondered many things. Do you know all of his work? All of his accomplishments? No? You must be soooooo dumb then!

                      Another interesting point to note is that you did not cite anything when you first talked about the experiment. Do you also find that interesting? I sure do.

                      How long did it take you to come to the right conclusion? Did you think that they would fall at different speeds? You can admit it. It’s okay.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      4chan is calling, troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Pot, meet kettle.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Speaking of trolls, Mark (The Troll) you forgot to answer my multiple questions on the other thread, where you were talking about the Constitutional rights of children being violated. I asked you to please elaborate, “or were you just trolling?” You haven’t responded to any of them yet, and there are quite a few. So, were you just trolling, or are you going to respond?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      All in good time, all in good time.

                      You do realize that that you are still participating in an ad hominem attack and that it is a fallacy right? Now, that is the kind of stuff a troller would do. You’re completely above all that of course.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, I am merely calling a spade a spade. You have had ample opportunity to dispute being correctly labeled a troll, and you have declined to respond. Second, my characterization of you as a troll is not being done in the advancement of any particular logical position, so it is not a logical fallacy. I.e. I am making no argument here that benefits from, let alone depends on, my calling you a troll. Third, my position is largely if not completely aligned with the stated position of this website. Yours is antithetical, making you at the very least a dissenter, if not an active disrupter. (Passing a year now, and counting.) Do you think you could successfully convince a neutral audience that the positions I argue here, on this *anarchist* forum, amount to trolling? I would happily argue the opposite, even if I didn’t have such things as your blatant double standards to support my claims.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “First, I am merely calling a spade a spade.”

                      Liar.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      That is merely an expression, which I thought you would understand. But, if not, perhaps you will understand this one instead: If it walks like a troll, talks like a troll, and smells like a troll, it’s probably a troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yours is antithetical, making you at the very least a dissenter, if not an active disrupter.”

                      That’s the way discussion boards work when they cover controversial subjects. I have disrupted nothing…especially on an “anarchy” list.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What, exactly, is controversial about guns, from the anarchist’s standpoint? (In your answer, please do not confuse the bomb-throwing chaos type of “anarchists” with the lack-of-government-coercion anarchists.)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “What, exactly, is controversial about guns, from the anarchist’s standpoint? “. Wrong question.

                      The author of this discussion posted both the picture above and his flawed analysis on Facebook. He then launched the discussion of the subsequent reaction and why he was really right after all.

                      Scroll to the top of this page in case you forgot to read it. That is part of the reason I am discussing.

                      For you though, disagreement is grounds for a troll accusation which you use unceasingly to remind yourself and others that we are wrong. It’s cheap and dishonest. Something I’ve come to expect from anarchists and their weak positions.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark The Troll writes: “[me]What, exactly, is controversial about guns, from the anarchist’s standpoint? “. Wrong question.”

                      No, it’s the right question. You stated that the subject is controversial. I am asking you to state what the controversy is. You now dodge the issue by stating it’s the wrong question, and change the subject.

                      “The author of this discussion posted both the picture above and his flawed analysis on Facebook. He then launched the discussion of the subsequent reaction and why he was really right after all.

                      Scroll to the top of this page in case you forgot to read it. That is part of the reason I am discussing.”

                      Once again, you stated that the topic was controversial. What is the controversy, amongst those who belong here?

                      “For you though, disagreement is grounds for a troll accusation”

                      Misleading. It, in combination with your own copious use of logical fallacy, of having a broken moral compass, and double standards, and other repeatedly demonstrated occasions of dishonesty, comprise the troll accusation. Mere disagreement alone is insufficient.

                      ” which you use unceasingly to remind yourself and others that we are wrong. It’s cheap and dishonest.”

                      There is nothing dishonest about it. I have made my cases that both you and Babs are trolls. See above.

                      “Something I’ve come to expect from anarchists and their weak positions.”

                      Calling positions weak doesn’t make them so. “Something I’ve come to expect from socialists and their weak positions.”

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I will be continuing to call you out on your lies, fallacies, and deceit. You truly have no interest in honest discussions. Fortunately, I can make my points without ad hominem attacks, lies, or dishonesty. You on the other hand have dug such a deep hole with your ad hominem that to cease doing so now would be an all out admission of guilt. I fully expect to see Troll in very post henceforth that is directed at the two if us.

                      Congratulations.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      First, you rightly earned the Troll title, and it took some work. I had indeed intended to use it every time I posted to you, although I have sometimes been remiss.

                      As for your other claim: “You truly have no interest in honest discussions.”

                      This first sentence is a lie, I am perfectly interested in them; you can see my disputes with Doug, for example, as evidence.

                      “Fortunately, I can make my points without ad hominem attacks, lies, or dishonesty.”

                      This second one is just laughable. I have called you out on numerous lies, like just in the sentence above. You don’t have much else except dishonesty and lies. For example, you have continued to include gun crimes in places where citizens are not allowed to carry guns, as a reason to place additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens elsewhere. That’s dishonest, and you’ve done it multiple times, even after being called on it – multiple times.

                      Then again, maybe you don’t consider such acts dishonest. Maybe there is just too much disparity between us that we can’t possibly even discuss anything. Maybe our starting assumptions are so different that we don’t even use words the same way, to mean the same things – especially including the word “dishonesty.”

                      You have also exhibited enormous double standards. I have called you on those too, and I consider them dishonest as well. But apparently you don’t. You claim innocence, it appears. I, on the other hand, freely admit to ad hominems against you, because you have earned them. (But, not ad hominem logical fallacies, because none of the attacks are fundamental to my positions. Which incidentally I have repeatedly asked you to retract or cite multiple examples of, and so far you have failed to do either.)

                      As for the substance of the attacks, it is interesting to compare our situations. I have called you bad things. Boo hoo. On the other hand, you actively seek to enact laws that would authorize police to kick in my door if I failed to comply with them, and shoot me dead if I continued to refuse. Even though none of the prohibited acts would harm a soul. So who here presents a real threat to others, speaking of “attacks”?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Good for you, I can continue to dismiss most if not all your responses because fallacy is your major mode of communication.

                      Ad hominem does nothing but make you look stupid.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      What is the basis for your dismissal of my response that:
                      (1) background checks amount to presumption of guilt, turning presumption of innocence on its head, and
                      (2) amount to a form of backdoor registration irrespective of any law prohibiting same, and in fact has been used, and indeed is being used presently, to enable confiscations of guns,
                      (3) in violation of the Second Amendment, which prohibits any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and
                      (4) noting that civilian disarmament has preceded numerous genocides in history, including all the big ones, and comprising a death rate that, even when amortized over a century, that is at least many tens of times larger than the overall US firearms homicide rate? (Which however includes a lot of deaths in places where people can’t legally defend themselves, including nearly all the major mass shootings.) And,
                      (5) that the evidence that measures such as background checks have a negligible impact on crime rates, although they do take officers off the street and put them to work checking paperwork on non-criminal citizens, and
                      (6) government presently is controlled by elite powers, and is usually dishonest, and has repeatedly been shown to operate in the interests of large corporations or powerful people, and specifically against the interests of the “little people”, and that therefore its stated intention to enact gun control for the benefit of said little people is probably disingenuous, never mind the lack of solid criminological evidence to justify such measures (#5).

                      There. No ad hominems. All substance. Any one of the reasons is enough to raise a principled objection to gun control. All of them together makes the case overwhelming. Plus there are other reasons.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “(1) background checks amount to presumption of guilt, turning presumption of innocence on its head”

                      Awww…I bet it gets under your skin to have to show an ID to vote or a ticket to enter a movie theatre. I bet credit checks drive you insane too. Boo hoo…

                      (3) in violation of the Second Amendment, which prohibits any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms

                      Yea, about that second amendment thing. The children issue. Children are not prohibited by the government but ARE often prohibited by their parents. It’s funny how the same people who can discern that a child should not have a gun are perfectly fine about an adult with similar jugemental facilities having one. Adulthood does not automatically confer qualifications to gun ownership. Adults are left with no means
                      to determine who should and should not have a gun.

                      That transference of gun ownership then becomes a problem for me. You have some partially incapacitated person running around because someone handed him a gun. Your solution is to force me to have a gun too in order to “defend myself”, thus blaming the victim.

                      I’m sure Kennedy and Lincoln would have both lived to a ripe old age if they’d just had a gun!

                      (4) noting that civilian disarmament has preceded numerous genocides in history, including all the big ones,

                      Red herring, slippery slope.

                      (5) that the evidence that measures such as background checks have a negligible impact on crime rates,

                      How can you tell? We’ve never had universal background checks.

                      (6) government presently is controlled by elite powers, and is usually dishonest,

                      Vote them out.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Once again, you stated that the topic was controversial. What is the controversy, amongst those who belong here? ”

                      This is a public forum. The public belongs here. Your accusation that I don’t belong here and that I am therefore a troll and to be ignored is yet another ad hominem fallacy.

                      I belong in a public forum.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark The Troll writes: “[me]What, exactly, is controversial about guns, from the anarchist’s standpoint? “.

                      Two fallacies in one sentence.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Speaking of trolls, Mark (The Troll) you forgot to answer my multiple questions on the other thread”

                      You then must enjoy the irony that you are are not responding to my questions above. I can repeat them in case you have trouble reading.

                      Why did you plagiarize Galileo’s thought experiment? How long did it take you to realize what the correct answer was?

                      And please, the only one trolling here is you. Or do you find spamming the same trolling response not to be trolling?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “And please, the only one trolling here is you. Or do you find spamming the same trolling response not to be trolling?”

                      Face it Babooshka, Bruce has our number. Nobody checked our Anarchist cards at the door and neither of us know the secret handshake. We came to a public forum to talk about gun stuff (a touchy subject for those shown the data in another public forum) that was posted on Facebook so we have no right being here.

                      Bruce is about to make the history books by redefining age-old fallacies and inventing a few new ones. I do hope he give me credit for the inspiration. I worked very hard at giving him new material.

                      Bruce is right. Letting miscreants have guns means nothing on this list. It’s just another day at the office where shit happens.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs The Idiot Troll writes:

                      “You then must enjoy the irony that you are are not responding to my questions above.”

                      I did respond: I said go back to 4chan. That is my response. You are not worth much more of my time than that.

                      “I can repeat them in case you have trouble reading.”

                      This is the sort of insulting behavior that prompts my answer above. Go to hell.

                      “Why did you plagiarize Galileo’s thought experiment?”

                      For your information, idiot, plagiarism is the copying, word-for-word, without attribution, the words of another and representing them as if they are one’s own. Such as your copying a many-thousands-of-words post, verbatim, but not my own description of his thought experiment, summarized in my own words, and described in a way that would make others understand that I didn’t come up with it. (“There was a brilliant thought experiment about whether heavy things fell more quickly or at the same speed as lighter objects.” Was, past tense, and about falling objects, now well-known to any student of physics. No one, except perhaps an idiot, would mistake that preamble as representing something I claim to have come up with.)

                      Mark:

                      “Bruce is about to make the history books by redefining age-old fallacies and inventing a few new ones. I do hope he give me credit for the inspiration. I worked very hard at giving him new material.”

                      I’ve thought about it. I probably should credit you for using them, and myself for identifying them and articulating why they are fallacies. If I ever write a blog about, I’ll probably reference this board. I have to say, though, that the product of your cleverness and your dishonesty is far beyond anything Aristotle (or, whoever it was) ever came across, because he sure missed a lot of them.

                      “Bruce is right. Letting miscreants have guns means nothing on this list. It’s just another day at the office where shit happens.”

                      Here’s my question to you: If The State has determined that someone is such a risk to society that he should never, for as long as he lives, be allowed access to any firearm, ever again, because he might use it to kill people, WHY LET HIM OUT OF JAIL AT ALL? Because there are hundreds of lethal weapons, and thousands of ways to kill people – which are utterly uncontrolled, so the idea that society will be pretty much safe from him if he were to walk among us, so long as he can’t buy a gun, is absurd. So, why let him out?

                      This might sound like a rhetorical question, but actually, I have a real answer.

                      But, first, what’s your answer?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The US does that. It’s called life without the possibility of parole.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “For your information, idiot, plagiarism is the copying, word-for-word, without attribution, the words of another and representing them as if they are one’s own. ”

                      Hahaha. I love it when you call me an idiot and make such an obviously incorrect statement. What definition of plagiarizing are you using? The one you made up? Plagiarizing is not limited to word for word reproduction. It is copying someone’s ideas without crediting them in an attempt to pass them off as one’s own. Verbatim, paraphrased, etc.

                      Alright, so you admit you don’t know the definition of the word – and you call me an idiot. Haha! But tell me, what definition were you using?

                      Now, regarding your point about in person voter fraud, which is the only type that voter ID laws can prevent, I will remind you again of your stupidity.

                      “(Not that violations of that law are enforced, when they are to the advantage of the enforcer.)”
                      “Therefore, the comparison to voting is fallacious, even absent the lack of prosecution of the woman.”

                      You sure about that?

                      “Melowese Richardson, who was convicted of voting 5 times for Barack Obama in 2012, and who was released after serving just 8 months of a 5 year sentence on the grounds that she is mentally imbalanced…”

                      I’ll even link you a right wing website as a source! http://freepatriot.org/2014/03/23/woman-just-released-prison-vote r-fraud-honored-ohio-democratic-party/

                      So, since you think in person voter fraud is such a problem, can you give any statistics that prove this? You can’t? It’s okay, you join the ranks of several State’s Republican parties who have pushed for Voter ID laws but admit that they also can’t come up with such statistics.

                      “In some places, you *don’t* have to show an ID to vote, and indeed people on your side are attempting to expand those places.”

                      What kind of absolutely moronic statement is that? Unbelievable Brucey, you really manage to outdo yourself on a regular basis. It is the exact opposite. In most places you don’t need to show ID to vote, and it’s your side that is trying to expand places that do require voter ID. Unfortunately for them, they are having terrible luck finding any evidence that there is even a problem to begin with. Oh, and they proudly admit this too.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Go back to 4chan. I reserve the right to correct obvious misstatements for the benefit of others, but I’m done debating anything directly with you, Babs. Good day.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “I reserve the right to correct obvious misstatements for the benefit of others, but I’m done debating anything directly with you, Babs.”

                      You reserve the right? Hahahahaha. What do you think this is? What you’re basically saying is that you will debate me on my points, you just won’t reply after your initial post. So you’re saying you just want the last word, but want to free yourself of the responsibility of answering once I say my part.

                      Ironically, there was absolutely nothing to debate in the post you responded to. I merely pointed out that you:

                      1. Lied about the correct definition of the word “plagiarizing”. Unless you didn’t know the definition and the mistake was an honest one. Was it?

                      2. Lied about the fact that the (mentally ill) Ohio woman that right wingers absolutely love did indeed get prosecuted and did indeed go to jail. Unless you didn’t know this. Nah, nevermind. You have google at your fingertips. It’s on the first page of searches. No excuse.

                      What in there is there to debate? Absolutely nothing. You were wrong and you were exposed for it. Whether you intentionally lied or just are ignorant is the only thing that is debatable. Which option do you prefer?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    ” (In your answer, please do not confuse the bomb-throwing chaos type of “anarchists” with the lack-of-government-coercion anarchists.)”

                    Another thing that some anarchists do… they think everyone is as stupid as they are.

                    What? We can’t throw Molotov Coctails after joining the anarchists? That sucks!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “[me](1) background checks amount to presumption of guilt, turning presumption of innocence on its head”

                      “Awww…I bet it gets under your skin to have to show an ID to vote…”

                      Logically unrelated. In some places, you *don’t* have to show an ID to vote, and indeed people on your side are attempting to expand those places. But in any case there is a reason to show ID, and that is because there is a law that people can only vote once. (Not that violations of that law are enforced, when they are to the advantage of the enforcer. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/22/No-Justice-Dep artment-Charges-Against-Ohio-Woman-Who-Voted-Six-Times-for-Obama )   So it is logical to have a list of registered voters, and cross their names off the list when they vote. In contrast there is no law that limits the number of guns that someone can own or purchase, to one. Therefore, the comparison to voting is fallacious, even absent the lack of prosecution of the woman.

                      “… or a ticket to enter a movie theatre.”

                      Also logically fallacious. First, movies aren’t a Constitutional right, they’re a service, which you must pay for. No tickee, no movie. Second, the ticket isn’t requested by members of the police force, to investigate you, it’s just a proof-of-purchase. Third, when you buy the ticket, it entitles you to watch the movie. When you get a background check (which in some jurisdictions one must pay for also) you *may or may not* be allowed to get a gun. There are no refunds on the check, and some places even hold your gun-purchase money if you are denied. Completely different, and totally inapplicable.

                      “I bet credit checks drive you insane too. Boo hoo…”

                      No legal rights are at stake by having a credit check done, and in any case the check isn’t done by government, it’s done by private entities.

                      So, you’re batting zero for three in your first “refutation” – and this from someone who claims to hold logic above all.

                      ((2) – you had no response. So I guess that one stands as I presented it. )

                      “[me](3) in violation of the Second Amendment, which prohibits any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms”

                      “Yea, about that second amendment thing. The children issue. Children are not prohibited by the government but ARE often prohibited by their parents.”

                      First, your statement is a lie. There are many laws that restrict children from buying or possessing guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms- policy-summary/

                      Second, you seem to neglect the whole idea of the age of majority (meaning children can not sign contracts and lack other legal rights) and also the fact that parents are legally responsible for the actions of their children. (If a child does something wrong, the parents can sometimes be criminally charged.) So of course some decisions become up to the parents. Because they’re on the hook. But this breaks your (pathetic) analogy, because government agents are most certainly *not* held responsible if a person uses a gun to commit crimes, so the government-as-parent aspect utterly fails, not to mention the fact that adults are *adults* and it is offensive for a government to treat them as children, which you seem to both support and desire.

                      “It’s funny how the same people who can discern that a child should not have a gun are perfectly fine about an adult with similar jugemental facilities having one. Adulthood does not automatically confer qualifications to gun ownership. Adults are left with no means to determine who should and should not have a gun.”

                      Because adults lack judgement? Because the government isn’t made up of adults, and therefore, doesn’t suffer from this failing? Inane.

                      “That transference of gun ownership then becomes a problem for me. You have some partially incapacitated person running around because someone handed him a gun.”

                      There are lots of bad people in this world. Get used to it.

                      “Your solution is to force me to have a gun too in order to “defend myself”, thus blaming the victim.”

                      Multiple lies here. First, contrary to your assertion, I am not forcing you to do anything. You are responsible for your safety, and you should take whatever measures you feel are appropriate. The police won’t save you, they have no legal duty to do so, and in any case there aren’t enough of them to protect everyone. But, second, you can be anywhere between an utter pacifist or arsenal-owning gun nut, as far as I am concerned. It’s crazy to think I’m forcing you to do anything. Third, pointing out to you that no one else has any obligation to protect you, and so you might think of protecting yourself, is not ‘blaming the victim’. Incidentally you are charging me with blaming you for something I did not do. Forth, as far as forcing others go, not only am I not forcing you to do anything, you are at least supporting a cause that *would force me* to comply with your wishes, pertaining to purchases and sales of firearms *at least*, and possibly concerning things that I own or may wish to own. So, on top of the above, you are also dishonest for falsely charging me with forcing you to do something I have not done, while you are actively seeking to *force me* to do things you wish me to do, at government gunpoint.

                      “I’m sure Kennedy and Lincoln would have both lived to a ripe old age if they’d just had a gun!”

                      As I said, there are bad people in this world, deal with it.

                      “[me](4) noting that civilian disarmament has preceded numerous genocides in history, including all the big ones,”

                      “Red herring, slippery slope.”

                      I utterly reject this response. Genocides are real, they actually kill people, there are patterns to how they transpire, and I (and many other people) are concerned that they could happen again, here. While you may think these concerns are silly, there is nothing illogical nor fallacious about identifying the risk factors and attempting to minimize them. In particular it is not a red herring because it doesn’t distract from the real issue, it *is* a real issue, at least to me.

                      “[me](5) that the evidence that measures such as background checks have a negligible impact on crime rates,”

                      “How can you tell? We’ve never had universal background checks.”

                      Once again, illogical. You have quoted the Brady study that stated “thanks to background checks, 200,000 guns weren’t sold to criminals…” (or whatever the number was). You can’t both hold the position that the checks “worked” and also hold the position that it is impossible to tell if they work, because they’ve never been tried. It is illogical to think that doing more of the same thing, that doesn’t reduce crime rates, will reduce crime rates. Actually, Einstein called it ‘insane’.

                      “(6) government presently is controlled by elite powers, and is usually dishonest,”

                      “Vote them out.”

                      Illogical again, the elites behind the curtains of power aren’t up for election, so I can’t vote them out. There is no reason to expect that the people I *can* vote out, won’t be replaced by other people also under the control of the same elites.

                      “[me]Once again, you stated that the topic was controversial. What is the controversy, amongst those who belong here? ”

                      “This is a public forum. The public belongs here. Your accusation that I don’t belong here and that I am therefore a troll and to be ignored is yet another ad hominem fallacy.

                      I belong in a public forum.”

                      But, you are not an anarchist, so you don’t belong on an anarchist forum. Would you argue that atheists belong on a Catholic forum, or that Catholics belonged on an atheist forum? And that those people couldn’t rightly be called trolls, given the context of their interactions with the others?

                      “[me]Mark The Troll writes: “[me]What, exactly, is controversial about guns, from the anarchist’s standpoint? “.

                      “Two fallacies in one sentence.”

                      Name them and show why they are fallacies.

                      ”[me](In your answer, please do not confuse the bomb-throwing chaos type of “anarchists” with the lack-of-government-coercion anarchists.)”

                      “Another thing that some anarchists do… they think everyone is as stupid as they are.”

                      Broad brush, ad hominem, offensive attribution of thoughts, straw man.

                      “What? We can’t throw Molotov Coctails after joining the anarchists? That sucks!”

                      Here’s what you said earlier:

                      “That’s the way discussion boards work when they cover controversial subjects. I have disrupted nothing…especially on an “anarchy” list.”

                      Why, “especially” on an anarchy list? Does the fact that anarchists think private entities can do things better than government give outsiders a special right to infiltrate their groups, spreading dissent, which isn’t conferred to outsiders of other groups? Or, perhaps, do you confuse anarchy with chaos and disruption, despite your protestations to the contrary, after all? Can atheists claim to not disrupt discussions, “especially” Catholic discussion groups?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “But, you are not an anarchist, so you don’t belong on an anarchist forum.”

                      I am in the public posting to a forum set up by an anarchist. The forum has public access. The subject was published on a Facebook. There was no required membership in posting. For that matter we have no proof that even you are an anarchist.

                      You are a liar and the rest of your assertions are dripping with fallacies. In addition, claiming that my arguments are in error because I am posting in a forum administered is yet another ad hominem fallacy. My political alignment does not change the truth. Because you cannot handle the truth you resort to attacking me rather than addressing the issues. It’s very typical of someone with no ground to stand on.

                      You’d better come to grips with the amount of embarrassment you have exposed yourself to. You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you in the ass.

                      Your attacks undermine every sentence you write.

                      So much for your irrational need for guns.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “First, your statement is a lie. There are many laws that restrict children from buying or possessing guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms- policy-summary/

                      It’s a lie in that it’s the only way to get you to admit the truth. Bravo!

                      So much for shall not be infringed. You do realize that you are arguing for laws while advocating anarchy…oh the irony!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Also logically fallacious. First, movies aren’t a Constitutional right, they’re a service, which you must pay for. ”

                      Shouldn’t I know whether you’re going to shoot me with your constitutional right Before I hand it to you?

                      The constitution does not usurp logic.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Why, “especially” on an anarchy list? Does the fact that anarchists think private entities can do things better than government give outsiders a special right to infiltrate their groups, spreading dissent, which isn’t conferred to outsiders of other groups? Or, perhaps, do you confuse anarchy with chaos and disruption, despite your protestations to the contrary, after all? Can atheists claim to not disrupt discussions, “especially” Catholic discussion groups?”Why, “especially” on an anarchy list? Does the fact that anarchists think private entities can do things better than government give outsiders a special right to infiltrate their groups, spreading dissent, which isn’t conferred to outsiders of other groups? Or, perhaps, do you confuse anarchy with chaos and disruption, despite your protestations to the contrary, after all?”

                      Anarchists think they can dispense with laws and everything will be fine… Then turn around and admit they won’t by insisting on guns to get their way. But the main premise here is that guns are the answer to shootings, and “proven” with poor logic and “math”. It’s utter rubbish. Your hypersensitivity to chaos is showing again.

                      “Can atheists claim to not disrupt discussions, “especially” Catholic discussion groups?”

                      Yes, many atheists can claim to not disrupt catholic discussion groups. If Catholics claim they have answers given to them by God then they better be ready to defend them because, just like gun worshippers, they ate going to have to defend their baloney.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “As I said, there are bad people in this world, deal with it.”

                      I shouldn’t have to deal with your lack of discernment or care…you’d feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.

                      Let me guess, you hold the convenience store worker who sold beer to 16 year olds who then committed vehicular homicide blameless. And you question my morals…

                      There’s enough “shit happening” without so called adults handing guns to other so called adults for ill purposes. Fortunately in your world of anarchy I’ll be happy to go after someone who armed an attacker that then harmed me or my lived ones in some way. I wonder what your after ego Pyrodice would say about arbitrating that.

                      But yea, if I ever hear of you or a loved one falling victim to some gun crime, I’ll be there in spirit to reminded you that shit happens.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Children are not prohibited by the government but ARE often prohibited by their parents. ”

                      Mark The Troll writes: “You are a liar and the rest of your assertions are dripping with fallacies.”

                      Unsupported.

                      “In addition, claiming that my arguments are in error because I am posting in a forum administered is yet another ad hominem fallacy.”

                      Straw man, that is not my claim.

                      “My political alignment does not change the truth. Because you cannot handle the truth you resort to attacking me rather than addressing the issues. It’s very typical of someone with no ground to stand on.”

                      Lie, I do and did address the issues. I have plenty of ground to stand on. I have destroyed all your arguments against my points, at least the ones you presented. You didn’t even respond to (#2).

                      “You’d better come to grips with the amount of embarrassment you have exposed yourself to. You wouldn’t know logic if it bit you in the ass.”

                      Ad hominem.

                      “Your attacks undermine every sentence you write.”

                      Sez you.

                      “So much for your irrational need for guns.”

                      Unsupported.

                      “[me]First, your statement is a lie. There are many laws that restrict children from buying or possessing guns. http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-firearms- policy-summary/”

                      “It’s a lie in that it’s the only way to get you to admit the truth. Bravo!

                      So much for shall not be infringed. You do realize that you are arguing for laws while advocating anarchy…oh the irony!”

                      What is ironic about my admitting the world which we live in? Here is your claim: “Children are not prohibited by the government but ARE often prohibited by their parents.”

                      There is no irony whatsoever in my citing the laws which I disapprove of, to show that your statement “Children are not prohibited by the government” is a lie. Would things be different if I were king? Yes, they would. But irrespective of that, your statement is nevertheless a lie: the government *has* prohibited children from buying or having guns. This is such an obvious point that one might think you are trolling.

                      “[me]Also logically fallacious. First, movies aren’t a Constitutional right, they’re a service, which you must pay for. ”

                      “Shouldn’t I know whether you’re going to shoot me with your constitutional right Before I hand it to you?”

                      There is no Constitutional right to murder.

                      “The constitution does not usurp logic.”

                      Logic has no place in law, either. Apparently. (“The law is an ass.”) It should, but I’m not in charge.

                      “[me]Why, “especially” on an anarchy list? Does the fact that anarchists think private entities can do things better than government give outsiders a special right to infiltrate their groups, spreading dissent, which isn’t conferred to outsiders of other groups? Or, perhaps, do you confuse anarchy with chaos and disruption, despite your protestations to the contrary, after all? Can atheists claim to not disrupt discussions, “especially” Catholic discussion groups?”

                      “Anarchists think they can dispense with laws and everything will be fine… ”

                      Two straw men: (1) there can be laws without government, and (2) I am not arguing that “everything will be fine” under anarchy. For example, I have already admitted that there are evil people in this world. Dismantling government doesn’t make them vanish, and they will still need to be dealt with one way or another. But they might well ruin a lot of people’s days before that happens, just like they do now. (Note that I’m explaining your use of fallacy, a courtesy you do not extend to me.)

                      “Then turn around and admit they won’t by insisting on guns to get their way. But the main premise here is that guns are the answer to shootings, and “proven” with poor logic and “math”. It’s utter rubbish. Your hypersensitivity to chaos is showing again.”

                      *My* hypersensitivity to chaos? I’m not the one who wants to keep written records of every single firearm transfer in the entire country. I can live with some chaos.

                      “[me]Can atheists claim to not disrupt discussions, “especially” Catholic discussion groups?”

                      “Yes, many atheists can claim to not disrupt catholic discussion groups. If Catholics claim they have answers given to them by God then they better be ready to defend them because, just like gun worshippers, they ate going to have to defend their baloney.”

                      You miss the point, of course. The point isn’t whether the Catholics are right or wrong, the point is whether the atheists are disrupters. Note that I gave the example both ways, earlier, including the case of Catholics disrupting an atheist discussion group. You only answer one, and you do so with ad hominem, dismissing the entire faith as “their baloney.” If that were a logical position, I could say you’re just spouting similar socialist baloney, and leave it at that. But, it wouldn’t be logical. So I oblige your disruptions. Troll.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      “But yea, if I ever hear of you or a loved one falling victim to some gun crime, I’ll be there in spirit to reminded you that shit happens.”

                      Unless, of course, the gun crime happens to be genocide that *you* enabled. Then you should hold your tongue, because it would make you look too much like a mass murderer to both enable my death, and then gloat over it. Why, it would almost be enough to make me think you have an utterly broken moral compass, and that you are a sociopath or a psychopath. And I don’t think such people should have any say in selecting leaders or laws. Maybe it’s time to have background checks for voters, and exclude those people who lack even shreds of morality.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Furthermore, I should add that the lethality of genocides being what they are, vastly greater than “ordinary” firearms homicides, and additionally the fact that I am not in the criminal lifestyle, and so actually have a pretty low risk of being killed in such a homicide, makes it very much more likely that if I am to be killed by a gun, it is much more likely that it will be in a genocide than in a random criminal attack. Of course, I could always be shot by police, who think that I own something I shouldn’t, that *you* supported the criminalization of. People shot by police in law enforcement activities isn’t the usual definition of genocide, but, on the other hand, such are “citizens killed by their own government” and the number of people so killed is alarmingly high and the rate is increasing.

                      You seem to express contempt for religious people, so you probably cheered when the Branch Davidians were massacred, but theoretically there is religious freedom here, so people have a right to have deeply-held, or even downright nutty beliefs. Even if I disagreed with the Davidians on matters of faith, I view their murders as an odious and heinous act on the part of the federal government. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if you cheered it.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                “My position is arguably correct *because* of x, y, and/or z, *plus*, I’d just like to mention for the record that you are ugly.”

                That is not ad hominem.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  That is my point. I will admit to making arguments like this one, but I am not aware of having made arguments like the former of my two examples. Therefore, I do not engage in the logical fallacy of ad hominem, despite your claim to the contrary. So, either show that I am mistaken, or retract your claim.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    You do both.

                    “From a tactical standpoint, it would be in Mark The Troll’s interest to seize upon any disagreements between those on our side, so as to pit us against each other. In fact, that is how things transpired. Mark is, indeed, a Highly Qualified Troll, and has rightly and justly earned the title. I submit to you that the reason for Mark The Troll’s lightning-fast response to one of your posts to Fritz was merely to accomplish this act of trolling. Doug even got involved, against us, and in particular, against me, although I think we (Doug and I) have largely resolved our differences. For that matter, I have been attempting to find common ground between you and Ray on one hand, and Fritz and Doug on the other, with limited success. Although the military issue is important, in my opinion it stands beneath the issue of an individual right (note to liberals: not privilege, but right) to self defense.”

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      That post was not in support of any position I have on guns, gun laws, or gun rights. It was merely an analysis of your posting behavior and your possible motivations. In particular, it contains no element of “my position on guns is correct because Mark is [x],” which is what it would have had to have been in order to qualify as an ad hominem logical fallacy. In fact, I don’t support any claim about guns whatsoever in that post. I only mention that I find a particular aspect important, but I don’t try to argue it, let alone claim that my position is right, “because Mark is an [x]“.

                      So keep looking, or retract your claim. By the way, you claimed I do this “a lot” so you will have to come up with multiple examples, “many” examples, which I am unable to dismiss in this way in order to support the claim.

                      By the way, if you cite a post and imply that it contains a fallacy which it does not, does that count as a lie? Yes.

                      At least you did so politely, unlike Babs’s usual habit, so I’ll give you that.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The accusation is that the points made are intended as trolls rather than valid arguments. The label is intended to discredit.

                      “Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.”

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Making an ad hominem attack is not the same as making an ad hominem logical fallacy, which is what you claimed I do “a lot”. So, don’t try to support the claim of my making ad hominem fallacies with examples of simple ad hominem attacks.

                      That would be wrong, and also deceptive on your part.

                      By the way, you’re ugly.

                      (Ideologically, at least.)

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Sorry for late reply. Been snowed in. Yes definition of terms is always a problem in philosophical discussions. When I speak of law I normally mean edicts from authority backed by governmental coercion. The laws of physics are “real” to me. Governmental laws are social garbage. But it is likely true as in your example that many “laws” would exist in an anarchistic society. They just would not have governmental coercion behind them.

      • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

        To this post earlier about why people are ignoring the holocaust, there IS an example of comparative genocide where the population in the sights was NOT disarmed… But I guess nobody thinks about the Serbs and Croats the way they think about the Germans and Jews…

        We know why not though, don’t we?

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Bruce, one thing the leftist mentality refuses to understand is that individuals are responsible for their own actions. You can show Mark all the stats you wish about gangs killing each other, but he will always come back to the idea that government should take control and responsibility from individuals. If our murder rate were 10 times as high and could be shown to be mostly due to gun’s availability, it does not change the basic argument. Guns are needed for indivliduals to protect themselves thus taking responsibility for themselves. Socialists will never accept that. This exemplifies one of the weaknesses of democracy. socialist types tend to be able to get voters together to promote their agendas while individualists seldom can.

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Fritz,

          I actually agree with you. Even if it could be conclusively shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that civilian gun possession led to increased rates of crime, all else being equal, and furthermore even if the democide argument were not present, I would still prefer it because I favor self-determination over collectivism. I would be happy to debate the socialists over that point. But, that said, I don’t even have to go there for the two reasons that, first, gun ownership is *not* associated with higher levels of crime – in fact it is the opposite, and second, because the democide argument is present, after all – and indeed is overwhelming. But the gun grabbers are so dishonest that it is sufficient to point out the more guns, less crime aspect utterly demolishes their case for gun control even absent any higher principle like self-determination. They have to argue that it is better to put one’s trust and, indeed, fate into the hands of government, *even though* crime rates would be higher and the democide argument looms. But that is how much they prefer collectivism.

          As far as I’m concerned, they can have it, so long as it doesn’t apply to me. So I resist collectivization in America, but if some other place wants to do it, go right ahead. If it comes to doing it here, I would endorse a peaceful separation of American states, those that wish collectivism vs. those that do not. There is no reason for the separation to not be peaceful, we all want the same goal of living as we desire and not as our debate opponents insist. On the other hand, I suspect that some people want to take our stuff or control our lives so much that they will try to prevent a peaceful separation. In other words, they would rather kill us than let us live as we wish. (While they preach “tolerance” and “embracing other cultures”(!)) Which I submit is pretty telling about their motivations, especially their motivation to control others.

          I am curious what other aspects of my position you disagree with.

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “I would still prefer it because I favor self-determination over collectivism.”

            Then go live in the woods. You are choosing to live in civilized society but want only the benefits without any of the sacrifices. Too bad. One day you’ll grow up and learn.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              We’d LOVE to live in civilized society, but asshats like you keep delegating the power to shoot people to a bunch of power hungry folks. If you’d just learn to BE civilized, and not initiate violence against peaceful people, we could get along fine. But as it stands, don’t have anyone ELSE threaten us in any way you wouldn’t do, yourself.

              • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                We’d LOVE to live in civilized society, but asshats like you keep delegating the power to shoot people to a bunch of power hungry folks. If you’d just learn to BE civilized, and not initiate violence against peaceful people, we could get along fine. But as it stands, don’t have anyone ELSE threaten us in any way you wouldn’t do, yourself.

                never happen with those leftist douchenozzles

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Babs The Troll writes: “Then go live in the woods. You are choosing to live in civilized society but want only the benefits without any of the sacrifices. Too bad. One day you’ll grow up and learn.”

              You are so far gone down the path of collectivism that you can’t even imagine a civilized society based on self-determination. It would appear to be utterly incomprehensible to you that I could possibly be talking about a society, that is, not a collection of hermits, where people’s own fates are largely in their own hands, and not in the hands of some bureaucrat thousands of miles away, who decide what you can and can’t eat, drive, light your house with, defend your life with, educate your kids, how much water to flush your potty with, or any of a thousand other decisions that the bureaucrats have no idea how their choices might be unwise or inappropriate for every one else’s situation, other than their own. To say nothing of them deciding what they do based on what the lobbyists pay them to decide.

              For you, it would appear that either you supplicate yourself to almighty government, or you go live in the woods. You’re a deep thinker. A Visionary Philosopher, if I do say so myself.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Bruce, I like this reply to Babooshka. I have been told by socialist types that I should go live in Somalia if I do not believe in government. Unfortunately socialist types get together and vote away our indlividual liberties. Since a lot more people lean towards socialism than indivlidualism, democracy can’t protect indlividual liberty. Another reason to promote the 2nd amendment for eventually free men will have to flight back since the sheeple will continue to vote away freedom.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  “Another reason to promote the 2nd amendment for eventually free men will have to flight back since the sheeple will continue to vote away freedom.”

                  You honestly think that? You really think that you will be using your gun to “fight back”? Very interesting. Can you describe how that scenario would play out? No one with that opinion ever seems to be able to.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    Let’s just say it’ll look a lot more like Chechnya than Auschwitz.

                  • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                    Can you describe how that scenario would play out? No one with that opinion ever seems to be able to.

                    Never heard of the Battle of Athens,eh?Or much other history either.I was watching some clips last night about the uprising against the Red Army in Budapest in ’56.Very interesting,showing how the students and workers seized sidearms from police,and a Hungarian sergeant-major helpfully provided several hundred Mosin-Nagin rifles and PPSH-41 SMGs to the people,greatly increasing their ability to stand against the lackeys of the Soviets,and eventually drive both occupying Russian divisions out.Fortunately,we’re much better prepared here,in the event of a similar scenario.

                    • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                      I enjoyed the story, but found the factual content about the gun culture fascinating. I am not a gun owner and had little understanding of the gun culture before readling this. Some things like “plinking” (casually shooting small animals for fun) is beyond my understanding, but I could really relate to the hero taking out a helicopter full of thugs coming for him. This is the kind of thinking we need lots more of. Freedom may indeed be an unattainable goal, but without weapons it becomes basically impossible to even contemplate.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Babs, actually it is more of wishful thinking on my part. I do not see enough people with balls enough to actually fight back so long as they have their boob tube, video games, and drugs of one form or another. But without weaponry there is very little hope of fighting the continued repression of an ever more dlictatorial government. Since most of us are largely controled by media disinformation, public school indoctrlination, and fear of the governmental thugs with their weapons ,the only hope for freedom lies with the few individualists willing to flight back. You might read John Ross’s Unintended Consequences for a flictional discussion of how this could happen. By the way, the feds tried to hang Ross saying his book was just a manual of how to kill federal employees. That is not true, but a collectivlist would be appalled at the idea of practical ways to flight back and survive.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      “ou might read John Ross’s Unintended Consequences for a flictional discussion of how this could happen”

                      I’ve read it.Amusing how in the book,the government thugs were dumbfounded as their cohorts were being taken out by $79.95 mil-surps

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Practical ways to “fight back” and change the politics/government/whatever do not involve firearms. What are you going to do? Seriously. Give me a scenario. I mean you obviously have one in your head when you say this kind of stuff, right? Or do you just get so far as saying “we need to fight back with our guns!”.

                      Sure there is a lot of bad media out there with poor information. But with the internet at your fingertips, you literally have access to media from all around the world. You have access to so much information that no previous generation before us has had. To sit there and say and blame others and saying you need to fight back with guns is really base. What people need to do is inform themselves, vote, and be active in their communities. Not threaten the use of firearms. That’s childish.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      If you haven’t been paying attention to the choice, you may not have noticed that both major parties are putting up worse and worse candidates every time. Hell, ’08 gave us a junior half-term senator versus an old man who spent 6 years in a tiger trap. Great stuff there. So when it gets bad enough that your choices are Hitler or Stalin, will you shrug off the violence and just let government inflict violence on you, because hey, you got to choose who whipped you?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ” So when it gets bad enough that your choices are Hitler or Stalin, will you shrug off the violence and just let government inflict violence on you, because hey, you got to choose who whipped you?”

                      My god, you are just as big of a drama queen as Bruce. Using hyperbolic examples just gets you labeled as crazy. And please, do explain, what violence is the government inflicting on you?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “My god, you are just as big of a drama queen as Bruce. Using hyperbolic examples just gets you labeled as crazy. And please, do explain, what violence is the government inflicting on you?”

                      Using hyperbolic examples is the only way to get through the head of a man as dumb as a frog in cold water.

                      The government inflicts no more violence against me than the slave-owner did to a slave who went out and worked the fields each day… Which is to say no evidence of actual force, just threats of it. But nobody is stupid enough to think that the government won’t USE that force when they’re no longer getting what they want from you. More americans have been killed by cops than insurgents since 9/11.
                      If I don’t pay my taxes, they’ll come with guns and tell me to come with them to jail. If I refuse, they’ll use force. If I resist, they’ll murder me.
                      If I don’t obey traffic signals, they’ll send papers threatening me with consequences. If I ignore them, see above.
                      If I ingest chemicals they don’t like, or patronize questionable establishments, or fail to get licenses to rent a room in my own house to people, or conduct business from a residence without more licenses… See above.
                      The threat is inherent in EVERY aspect of your life. But you don’t want to compare with totalitarianism? Aside from the ACTUAL HOLOCAUST, what was Nazi Germany doing that we’re not, today?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “”My god, you are just as big of a drama queen as Bruce. Using hyperbolic examples just gets you labeled as crazy.”

                      I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “The government inflicts no more violence against me than the slave-owner did to a slave who went out and worked the fields each day… Which is to say no evidence of actual force, just threats of it. But nobody is stupid enough to think that the government won’t USE that force when they’re no longer getting what they want from you. More americans have been killed by cops than insurgents since 9/11.
                      If I don’t pay my taxes, they’ll come with guns and tell me to come with them to jail. If I refuse, they’ll use force. If I resist, they’ll murder me.
                      If I don’t obey traffic signals, they’ll send papers threatening me with consequences. If I ignore them, see above.
                      If I ingest chemicals they don’t like, or patronize questionable establishments, or fail to get licenses to rent a room in my own house to people, or conduct business from a residence without more licenses… See above.
                      The threat is inherent in EVERY aspect of your life. But you don’t want to compare with totalitarianism? Aside from the ACTUAL HOLOCAUST, what was Nazi Germany doing that we’re not, today?”

                      This just needs to be quoted. You are insane. Yea, man, slaver owners were real friendly to their slaves. They never beat em. They just threatened em and then all the slaves did what their masters said.

                      Oh, what did Nazi Germany do, other than the Holocaust? Hahahahaha.

                      Listen to this guy. He’s absolutely nuts.

                      We get it. You don’t like any rules. How does your family work? Do the children get to tell their elders they are retarded? Can they slap their elders in the face? What if a kid in your family craps on your bed, any rules there?

                      Oh, what’s that, you also have rules that you impose on others? Oh, you’re such a Nazi!

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Holy SHIT, Babs, find yourself someone who comprehends 6th grade english and they’ll explain every error you just made, because on the off chance you actually believe the diarrhea that came out on your post just there, as opposed to just trying to lay down cover fire on a retreat… well… you need HELP. Literally NOTHING you said there was a rebuttal of anything *I* said, before it.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “find yourself someone who comprehends 6th grade english and they’ll explain every error you just made”

                      Why? Do you not comprehend 6th grade English? Why bother responding if you aren’t going to even respond with anything of substance? You don’t explain any error I made but claim that you are still right. Is that how it works in your head?

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Clearly someone ELSE who both understands 6th grade English and hasn’t run straight the fuck out of patience with your shit.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      There isn’t much to explain. I just made fun of your post. I didn’t make any points, so how could I have made any errors?

                      I see you had the patience to respond and tell me you don’t have any patience to respond to me. Very good. Following Bruce’s lead I see. He is quite the trend setter.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      If it weren’t for straw men Bruce / Pyrodice would have nothing to talk about.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Probably Mark, because without the strawmen to hide behind, you’d have been forced to acknowledge the obvious benefits of firearms saving millions of lives.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “There isn’t much to explain. I just made fun of your post. I didn’t make any points, so how could I have made any errors?”

                      You rarely make any points, and still manage to make errors constantly, usually in what you choose to make fun of. It wasn’t complicated, and, just like this last post, you still managed to fuck it up royally. Back to 4chan, troll.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Probably Mark, because without the strawmen to hide behind, you’d have been forced to acknowledge the obvious benefits of firearms saving millions of lives.”

                      Funny that you would reply to a straw man reply with another straw man, Guns have saved lives, I wouldn’t deny that some people are able to have luck with a gun.

                      Why when you talk about cars and deaths you don’t talk about the people saved by cars? Cars benefit people more than guns.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Funny that you would reply to a straw man reply with another straw man, Guns have saved lives, I wouldn’t deny that some people are able to have luck with a gun.”

                      Wow, you know you’re a liberal when… Listen, things that are skill are different than things which are luck… Like how when a man busts his ass and does well financially, the left calls him “lucky”. As if he won a lottery… Similarly, if a person has made preparations by buying a firearm, and has it to chase off burglars, he was “lucky”, as if he found it under the floorboards when he moved in. So about those strawmen, huh?

                      “Why when you talk about cars and deaths you don’t talk about the people saved by cars? Cars benefit people more than guns.”

                      I have. WE have. Because their utility is so blatantly obvious that they become a good parallel, especially when they get used for all manner of things, good, bad, and neutral. The whole point is that as an object they’re neutral, it’s the manner in which they get used that we should be discussing. So since you’re allergic to discussing this sort of thing, what manner would you have used cars to keep the jews out of the ghettos? How about to deter a rape in an alley?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Similarly, if a person has made preparations by buying a firearm, and has it to chase off burglars, he was “lucky”, as if he found it under the floorboards when he moved in. So about those strawmen, huh?”

                      What do you call someone who prepares but gets killed anyway? There is definitely a fair amount if luck involved in a lethal situation.

                      Leave it to a conservative to think that being born out if poverty in a country that has wealth, to parents who care, a school system where they can learn, be nourished enough to be able to learn, and not in a war ravaged land has nothing to do with luck. I bet you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps every day, test your own medications, pave your own roads, build your own cars, and machine your own guns.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Btw, you never answered my other question.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “What do you call someone who prepares but gets killed anyway? There is definitely a fair amount if luck involved in a lethal situation.”

                      Do you call a cop who gets killed by a criminal simply “unlucky”, too? Is it luck, or individual action? What is it when the burglar gets shot? Simply unlucky? Did he just “fall” into his target house?

                      “Leave it to a conservative”

                      Hold it. Let’s fucking stop you right there. If you don’t know the difference between an anarchist and a conservative, you’re COMPLETELY unequipped to hold this conversation.

                      “…to think that being born out if poverty in a country that has wealth, to parents who care, a school system where they can learn, be nourished enough to be able to learn, and not in a war ravaged land has nothing to do with luck. I bet you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps every day, test your own medications, pave your own roads, build your own cars, and machine your own guns.”

                      Ok, so since my father was born to a poor italian family in Rhode Island, and “bootstrapped” his way through MIT by playing the accordion in bars, and retired at 46 from AOL stock he invested in because they were HIS account at his computer company, I’m sure you’ll be completely incredulous to anything I say… But I could try anyways. How exactly do you think “roads” are hard to build? People have the know-how to put together dams, power plants, skyscrapers… but a road, you know “a flat place covered in rocks”… That’s somehow too complicated? And how should I have to do all those things, in the first place? Why would I be required to? That’s why people pay money to each other… If everyone did everything themselves, we’d all be subjected to the depredations of our weakest skill. Economics 101 says you pick what you do best, and trade with someone else who does a different thing best.

                      “Btw, you never answered my other question.”

                      I answered every comment I’ve seen, line by line, if you say I’ve missed something, you should copy it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Ideologies overlap. Maybe you forgot that. Anarchists make many claims, often conflicting. Anarchy is a lot like fascism, the term has been so overused as to be meaningless. Besides, you used the liberal label without knowing my politics…seems only fair for me to offer the counter argument.

                      So what is it? Should everyone have a gun? I think you claimed no but you were shy on who and for what reasons.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Ideologies overlap. Maybe you forgot that.”

                      If this relates to something I said, you should have copied it, otherwise it looks like a non-sequitur.

                      “Anarchists make many claims, often conflicting.”

                      This is because there are people under the umbrella of anarchism who believe in different sorts of societies, built in the absence of government. Those who reject money in favor of some form of communism, “anarcho-communists”, who I don’t entirely understand, because I DESIRE to use money as a store of value… This brings us to “anarcho-capitalists”: The school of thought that if you want it, you buy it, and as long as the person selling it actually OWNS it, nobody else need have a say.
                      In between, and not entirely understood by me is an “anarcho-mutualist” concept, that might be something like a “credit union” paradigm, but don’t hold me to it.

                      “Anarchy is a lot like fascism, the term has been so overused as to be meaningless.”

                      Fascism has a root word that describes caricatures in fascia. that lends itself to being meaningless in terms of political philosophy. Anarchism has a root word that’s self-descriptive: An-Arkos. Without rulers. (NOT without rules: Rules are agreed upon for everything, in daily life. Would you stop driving on the right if someone stole the street signs? Well, for that matter, is there ever a street sign saying you need to drive on the right?)

                      “Besides, you used the liberal label without knowing my politics…”

                      I know your position on guns, it’s a liberal position. What are you claiming? Politics makes strange bedfellows?

                      “seems only fair for me to offer the counter argument.” The counter argument to being liberal isn’t conservative, it’s just “not liberal”. That could be the aforementioned fascism, libertarianism, conservatism, anarchism, or in some parties “labor party”, “tory” or whatever.

                      “So what is it? Should everyone have a gun? I think you claimed no but you were shy on who and for what reasons.”

                      The answer is that I don’t choose to make a decision that “everyone” should be subject to. Therein lies

                      Is one of these the question you claim I missed the first time?

                • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                  Some things like “plinking” (casually shooting small animals for fun)
                  Wrong.Plinking is shooting at improvised targets,such as tin can,milk jugs,etc

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Cav, if I remember correctly Ross used the term to include shooting crows on the fly as the hero was drifting down river. Whatever one calls it, I am oppossed to killing just for fun or even trophy hunting. Hunting for food is fine.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      he may have used that definition in the book-I did’nt remember it offhand,as it has been a number of years since I read it.However,any one who is part of the “gun culture” would disagree with that definition,and anyone who shoots small animals for sport or shits and giggles is beneath contempt .The majority of my hunting over the years has been vermin of the two legged variety,rather than four legged,but I would never shoot an anima; just to shoot it-in fact the last animal that I shot was a possum that was threatening my mother in law’s cats.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    I accept your definition since you know far more about the gun culture than I do. Many years ago I had to shoot a dog that was killing our sheep. It has been over 40 years but I still remember watching him die and burying him. I will use weapons if necessary, but I recognize that there is a price to be paid.

                    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

                      well,growing up in rural WI,shooting dogs comes up often enough.In the late 60s and early 70s,we had a big problem in my area with feral dogs,many of whom were rabid.One of my earliest childhood memories is of the neighbor woman flying out of the house,shotgun in hand,to pull myself and her kids behind her to protect us and to shoot a rabid dog that wandered into the yard.It’s one of those really vivid memories too-after more than four decades,i still remember her working the bolt on the shotgun three times.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, I honestly do not remember exactly wht I have found in your positions to differ with. I do not keep up with most of the arguments on this site because of the invective and irrationality of numerous participants. In general we agree on most aspects about freedom though I suspect you are more of a minarchist while I am an anarchist. Perhaps you are more pragmatic than I. I very much appreciate the fact that you try to be civil and rational in your dliscussions often with folks who are quite insulting.
            It is easy to pick apart the socialist rhetoric of people like Mark, though to be fair he makes some good points. It is more difficult to disect the more conservatlive viewpoints which are often equally absurd but more palatable to those of us who believe that weapons are necessary for indivlidual freedom. I think the case of Moultrie, GA is a good example. The law there that everyone must be armed is equally abhorent to me as NY City’s gun control. Both destroy indlividual liberty by denying indivlidual choice.

            • BruceNo Gravatar says:

              Thanks for you comments. I have two avenues for reply.

              First, on a more theoretical side, there are really two ways to approach discussions like this, incrementally vs. globally, if you like. Incrementally, should one support or oppose a given bill that is presently under consideration? I could give reasons to support or oppose it based on a very local analysis of the effect on liberty, and in so doing, might lead you to think I’m more in favor of government that I would be, if the presented question was instead the global question of, “What would be my ideally-designed utopia, if I could start from scratch?” It’s clear that discussions about the latter are simply impossible with socialists, because, they are so far away that they can’t even imagine things like self-determination having any place at all in a civilized society. If *that* concept is alien to them, then there’s little hope of spelling out the whole structure of society and arguing that it would be preferable to what we have now. So, I take opportunities at a much smaller level, and, for example, oppose the expansion of background checks to all firearms transfers. Another example, which is actually a more difficult question, is whether to support or oppose a bill (that has since become law, supported by the NRA) which gives all ex-cops 50-state CCW privileges, for life. Although it would seem at first glance to incrementally increase the amount of guns being carried, and also of people able to carry, I nevertheless oppose it because it creates a caste of super-citizens, which has rights above and beyond those of regular citizens. I am much opposed to the creation of tiers of citizens, and also of things which empower government agents, or even ex-government agents, over the people generally. You might not guess this from my responses, but I’m pretty much convinced that anything government can do, private entities can do at least as well. It just doesn’t come up, though.

              The second topic is that, yes, I try to be a pragmatist. Regarding your example of the mandatory-armament law in GA, I do grasp, and even hold, your objection that it restricts freedom.

              However: there are two huge questions that need to be addressed before such laws are criticized, at least from the incrementalist standpoint. The questions are, what comes of enforcement, and the second is, who is penalized by the law?

              Consider a town with a gun ban, and another with mandatory gun ownership. People found with guns are typically treated as violent felons (i.e. “taken down” and violently arrested) and they face, in some jurisdictions, mandatory prison time, felony charges, and permanent loss of their rights. Chicago, Maryland, New York, and other such cops, are essentially sworn enemies of gun owners, and they often shoot them on sight. Such is the nature of enforcement of gun prohibitions. On the other hand, those jurisdictions which mandated gun ownership, first, only make the penalty weak (not a felony), don’t engage in violent arrests, et.c, and indeed have even stated that the law is only a token and won’t be enforced any way. So if you really had to pick one or the other, I think you’d have to agree that the gun-mandate laws really aren’t as bad, after all, as the gun-ban laws are.

              Second, consider who is enabled and who is inconvenienced by such laws. Gun bans empower criminals and tyrants both, while jeopardizing peaceable citizens, who become unable to resist both criminal attack and gross government malfeasance by being disarmed. On the other hand, who are the winners and losers in the gun-mandated places? Criminals and tyrants both are put on notice that, not only are people armed there, they are *Required* to be armed. So, think carefully about what acts you (the criminals and tyrants) plan to perform, in light of this information. The peaceable citizens who intend to be armed anyway suffer no inconvenience. Only those who can’t afford guns, or those principled people who are so adamant about liberty that they object to such a law on principle, but, nevertheless, have decided they do not wish to be armed, are jeopardized by such a law.

              I submit to you that empowering criminals and tyrants is a much worse thing to do than inconveniencing people who *refuse* to be armed, but who nevertheless are so strong on principles that they object to the law.

              So on both counts, I submit that it would be better to mandate gun ownership than prohibit it, although I do agree with you in principle that both laws compel people to do something the law has no business doing.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Sure Bruce, I agree. I will say that when I write here in the Anarchist Daily, I am probably being more theoretical since there is about zero chance of seeing an anarchistic society of any consequence in my lifetime. Basically I promote anarchism despite realizing the practical impossibility of its implementation because it is stupid to aim low. Law and freedom are antithetical. So I promote the idea of no government as the ideal goal to strive for. Pragmatically I try to maximize my personal liberty by living off the grid in the backwoods. The 2nd amendment is a no brainer for free folk. So I find it truly amazing that folks like Mark writing in this venue don’t understand that freedom requires the ability to defend that freedom which implies owning weapons. As used today the 2nd amendment does not go nearly far enough. Regular folks need the availability of the same weaponry that the normal soldier can have. This includes anti-tank weapons and hand held anti-aircraft weaponry like we gave the Muslims in Afganistan to fight the Russians years ago. If such weaponry were widely available and owned by indivliduals we would have little fear of being run over by either foreign or domestic armies. Yes we could be nuked out of existence, but I think even that could be defended agalinst better in a free society where scientific advancement was not controlled by government or giant corporations which are like mini-governments.

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  It’s not law and freedom which are antithetical. The problem isn’t the rules, it’s the RULERS. :)

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Uh, the rulers set the rules. Can’t have one without the other. Do try and think from time to time.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      The rules of this conversation included that it be held in English. Who threatened you with a gun, if you came in speaking Chinese?
                      Jesus you’re a simpleton.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    pyrodice, you are inaccurate. By definition all laws reduce freedom and are thus antithetical to it. Admittedly, laws without thugs to enforce them are pretty meaningless, but one could argue that it isn’t really a law without a means of enforcement.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Freedom at any cost? Should we be free to kill anyone? That’s the trouble with absolutes.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      You might be devolving into mere a semantic argument, about what is “law.” Consider the following hypothetical society. (Since I will be dealing in hypotheticals, I don’t expect Mark or Babs to follow it, therefore, I explicitly am requesting their silence. I’m sure they can take it incorrectly one way or another, and I don’t desire the burden of attempting to correct them, especially in light of their ability to miss the point, with rudeness and even abusiveness.)

                      But, consider a land in which it is understood that men and women will commit to each other prior to having sex, and furthermore imagine that the enforcement mechanism is that, if you have sex with a girl prior to making such a commitment, the father of the girl will shoot you dead, and if she has made such a commitment, the husband will do the same, and this without any sanction coming down upon either of them from any other person or agency. It is just understood that this is how things are done.

                      Now, in such a society there is no “law” that prohibits you from having sex with whomever you desire, inasmuch as there is no government agency that would arrest you under any sort of charge whatsoever. On the other hand, force is very much at issue, because you risk getting shot if you attempt anything untoward towards any of the town’s girls. In this case, enforcement is present, but it’s distributed throughout the society and indeed lies in every man who can claim responsibility to a girl either through lineage or marriage. (For the sake of this example, please set aside the question of whether women would be free or not under such a rule, e.g. to engage in voluntary associations at will. That aspect is not the point of this hypothetical. Merely it is to establish that there can be enforcement mechanisms that are outside of “law.”)

                      Mark The Troll writes: “Freedom at any cost? Should we be free to kill anyone? That’s the trouble with absolutes.”

                      In his typical way, he finds a manner to distort the question.

                      Mark, you are perfectly free to kill anyone. Nothing is stopping you from stabbing the next person you meet, or buying a gallon of gasoline and pouring inside a building, and then lighting it and chaining the doors shut as you leave. There are no background checks on knives or gasoline, nor on any of a thousand other ways at your immediate disposal to kill one person or many. Including, but not in the least way limited, to shooting the next person wearing purple that you happen to see. So, in that sense, you are entirely free to do any of these acts, right now, notwithstanding the zillions of laws already in place.

                      Of course you can expect consequences if you do any such acts, but, then again, you could expect them in any other society, including one lacking a central government with uniformed agents tasked with enforcing the laws. It doesn’t take an agent of The State to shoot you dead, because you’re killing people. Armed citizens would be enough. Somehow, though, you don’t seem to be able to grasp that whatever police officers, empowered by The State, can do, could also be done by ordinary citizens, absent any central government, who rise to the occasion of unusual or dangerous situations, merely by taking appropriate actions if and when such situations present themselves. This incredible circumstance, people rising to meet unexpected challenges by their own presence of mind and initiative, absent agents of the government, is called by people such as yourself, “anarchy.” It is, apparently, to be greatly feared and opposed, by people such as yourself.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “A law is an opinion with a gun” it was once said. To some extent that’s true: any time you’ve appealed to a judge to decide a dispute, his ruling has the value of a law. If another case comes before another judge that remembers this similar case, they can refer to it, and use it as precedent. Now, without agreeing to arbitration, parties only have options which less often have positive outcomes: give up and get screwed, or resort to violence. Since violence is a very uncertain thing… You could of course be up against someone who’s better at it… If you still think it reduces your freedom, to have a law, and an arbitrator, I can’t change that… But in that case, you may find that you were exercising freedoms which were not rights, in the manner of the slave owner being free to survive on the Blair of others. Not all cases will be that blatant, of course.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Yea Fritz, that was a pretty dumb thing to say.

      • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

        This sounds like a racist fact. As in “White men can’t jump”. One could make the argument / observation that the laws in this country drive a lot of that “racist violence” As in create a class of economic activity that is based on real desire for a valued product like alcohol, then actually sanction only a certain class of people who deal in that product”. Also prevent that same class of people, via various discriminatory methods, from succeeding in the greater population. Presto — that group becomes criminals.

        As evidence of just one part of the above. Compare the best statistics on heroine, marijuana, and cocaine usage among races, and then look at which people end up in jail, and try and make the argument that the entire drug prison complex is not just a way to keep niggers in they place. Does anybody really think that the multi billion dollar heroine & coke market in the US is supported by ghetto residents stealing boom boxes from each other and fencing them?

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          Whom are you responding to, and/or expecting a response from? Maybe start a new thread.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          wow.You sound just like Barry Soteoro.Is rampant crime in inner city neighborhoods Bush’s fault too?

        • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

          Doug, I personally think that blacks do have some racism applied against them by some laws. But more laws are there to keep the poor down than specifically blacks. Much of the reason for more blacks being imprisoned has to do with the ease cops have in apprehending them and “proving” their “guilt”. Lower black intelligence tends to make them easy targets. I also think from what I have seen that blacks do use drugs a lot more than whites but this is severely under reported by the leftist media. Lower classx whites use drugs a lot. But as you climb the class ladder such use drops off, but there is a higher consumption fo more esoteric and expensive drugs. This is slimilar to smoking cigarettes which is pretty uncommon in your middle and upper class whites but is rampant in lower class whites.

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            I can give an example of an explicitly racist law: Affirmative action, which mandates that race *must* be considered when selecting someone for admission, hiring, promotion or advancement.

            We show our enlightenment by denouncing racism, right?

            • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

              “I can give an example of an explicitly racist law: Affirmative action, which mandates that race *must* be considered when selecting someone for admission, hiring, promotion or advancement.”

              Bingo!I saw a sterling example of it back in the mid 90s,while instructing at Fort McCoy.There was a slot open for a branch chief,and it was given to a drooling moron,who happened to have the correct complexion,rather than a far more qualified candidate

          • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

            “Lower black intelligence tends to make them easy targets.”

            Ooo boy.

            • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

              Aww, is it taboo to say that? I’m not Jimmy the Greek, but I know as well as he did that slave owners DID conduct primitive eugenics by breeding the stronger and dumber slaves more. Am I racist for knowing that?

              • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                Jimmy the Greek never said anything about intelligence. He talked about physical strength. Can’t even get your racist comments right.

                If you have evidence to back up your statements, please, by all means, present it.

                Until then, yes, you are racist for saying that.

                • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                  and so once again we have a race to the shallow end of the gene pool by idiots on opposite sides of an argument with both parties to lazy to do even the most meagre research
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States# Contrasting_scholarly_views

                  http://quinxy.com/politics/why-slavery-didnt-make-african-america ns-superior-athletes/

                  To lazy I suppose that I could add arrogantly certain in their “knowledge” or what passes for knowledge in their minds.

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    Doug, my dear Doug. Usually we seem to agree, but, if I read your post correctly, you seem to be attacking what I said.

                    First, do you know the difference between “to” and “too”? Because twice in your post you seem to have shown that you do not. One time might be a typographical error. Two times and you begin to wonder.

                    Here is the quote:

                    “The black is a better athlete to begin with because he’s been bred to be that way — because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. This goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trading, the owner — the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have a big black kid.”

                    Where does it mention intelligence? It doesn’t. This is the comment that he made and this is the comment that pyro was referring to. Not some explanation after the factor trying to apologize for his comments.

                    But since you brought this article up, let me mention that intelligence is mentioned once in this article:

                    “that it could be driven by a set of racist assumptions that African American achievements in sports are related to strength and not intelligence”

                    That does not say slaves are bred for their lack of intelligence. It says that strength is the factor that was considered. Not intelligence. Not eye color. Not hair length. Not height. Not etc. Do you understand?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      To save others the trouble, there is a space missing between fact and or in the 4th paragraph. Sorry to spoil your fun.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Should I also mention the sentence that mentions intelligence, it talks about why they are considered for the NBA, and nothing to do with slave breeding?

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    “And here is the answer I finally found…

                    Selection in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Those who became slaves were not selected for strength but were merely the survivors of conflict. Even if the people choosing who became a slave was selecting for apparent strength/health the basis of that strength/health was NOT genetic but was environmental/opportunistic, that person just happened to not be suffering from randomly acting disease/injury/malnutrition.

                    Survival on the way to the slave markets was similarly not genetic but had to do with the slave’s health at the beginning of the trip and specific events (disease exposure/nutrition/etc.) during the trip.

                    Traders in markets in Africa may have selected for perceived strength/health, but again the basis for this selection was not primarily genetic, it had more to do with the “luck” of the slave to that point.

                    Transportation to the New World was like the previous transportation, survival was primarily controlled by the environment and initial health conditions of the slave

                    And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.”

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      ““And here is the answer I finally found…

                      Selection in Africa was largely the result of tribal conflicts and war. Those who became slaves were not selected for strength but were merely the survivors of conflict. Even if the people choosing who became a slave was selecting for apparent strength/health the basis of that strength/health was NOT genetic but was environmental/opportunistic, that person just happened to not be suffering from randomly acting disease/injury/malnutrition.”

                      This describes every human being who has survived natural selection, and as such is uncompelling.

                      “And while some slave masters did engage in eugenics their efforts were ineffectively crude, being incredibly limited in scale and inexactly uncontrolled. Further, even with a more controlled and widespread eugenics program, 250 years would not have been enough time for major genetic differences to emerge.”

                      a single generation is enough to choose traits that we’ve known about since Mendel. Multiple generations reinforce such selections, of course, but 250 years would have been a TREMENDOUS amount of time in a population being bred in their teens.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Your opinion means absolutely nothing. Present some evidence or shut up.

                      “This describes every human being who has survived natural selection, and as such is uncompelling.”

                      You are supporting the side of the argument that genetics were not a factor. Not sure if you even realize it.

                    • Doug NusbaumNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs: Horrors. You are correct. my gramatical use of to was wrong. Hence my logic must be wrong and I must have a double digit IQ. This of course in no way negates the information that I presented which was that the entire argument of eugenics and “breeding of slaves” was fallacious. Such things did not happen. You are having a discussion about something that is the equivelant of the colour of the horn of a unicorn. Did you even bother to check my links. Your discussion seems to indicate that you did not.

                      though in fairness, unlike most people here, your later post does indicate that you actually did independent research. No sarcasm here. Nice to see some conservatives bring brains into play. It so rarely happens. Then I went back and checked. Not sure what you are. I think that your position is that we should have a sort of regulated 2nd amendment, though how one does that and and makes it in synch with “shall not be infringed” eludes me

                      Mostly you seem to have good arguments, indulge in unnecessary name calling (you can describe someone as stupid if you define the term and show how what they write falls under that definition) and are probably retired with way to much time on your hands.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Your opinion means absolutely nothing. Present some evidence or shut up.”

                      You first.

                      [me]“This describes every human being who has survived natural selection, and as such is uncompelling.”

                      You are supporting the side of the argument that genetics were not a factor. Not sure if you even realize it.”

                      I might be the ONLY one who realizes what I’m saying, but you’re welcome to keep trying. Here’s your chance: Genetics WEREN’T a factor when they were free men, because NATURE acts upon all of us. SLAVEMASTERS do not. They don’t pick YOUR wife for you, nor sell off children who don’t thrive… They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities.
                      If you don’t think a certain number of generations, perhaps 10 or so, is enough to spotlight the changes in genetic predilections, maybe you can tell me how many it takes (go ahead, use google, I’m sure you don’t know offhand), and then we’ll run that against similar human-incurred artificial selections. Like the tolerance to alcohol that the Dutch, English, Irish, French and Germans came over with, that the natives lacked completely.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “They don’t pick YOUR wife for you, nor sell off children who don’t thrive… They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities.”

                      Hahahaha. You crazy fuck. Not only did slavemasters arrange marriages, which is the foundation of your argument that genetics were a factor once they were enslaved, slavemasters routinely raped their slaves. Why do you think blacks in America are so much lighter than those in Africa? Ah yes, withholding medical care from slaves was doing them a service! You are so right!

                      So you shoot yourself in the foot and show that you are know absolutely nothing about what you speak. Excellent contributions.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Hahahaha. You crazy fuck. Not only did slavemasters arrange marriages, which is the foundation of your argument that genetics were a factor once they were enslaved”

                      Why yes, they chose their slaves wives. This is the foundation of my argument that they utilized Eugenics to achieve the modification of the culture’s physical and mental capabilities. Thank you for conceding exactly what I was saying… Although I think you didn’t intend to, because you didn’t comprehend that this was my argument.

                      “…slavemasters routinely raped their slaves. Why do you think blacks in America are so much lighter than those in Africa? Ah yes, withholding medical care from slaves was doing them a service! You are so right!”

                      Wow, holy shit, lady, you’re nuts. You DARE to insinuate that *I* ever held the position that this was a desirable thing, or, as you put it, a “service”? I guess Libel goes with your plagiaristic tendencies in the ever-lengthening rap shee… er… résumé…

                      “So you shoot yourself in the foot and show that you are know absolutely nothing about what you speak. Excellent contributions.”

                      Yes, that’s precisely how you’re coming off.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ““They don’t pick YOUR wife for you, nor sell off children who don’t thrive… They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities.””

                      You said they didn’t arrange marriages.

                      And now you say:

                      “Why yes, they chose their slaves wives”

                      You seem confused. Perhaps mentally not quite there.

                      “This is the foundation of my argument that they utilized Eugenics to achieve the modification of the culture’s physical and mental capabilities. ”

                      The argument that you have backed with what evidence? Oh yea, Jimmy the Greek. But not what he did say, but what he meant. Well, that’s pretty strong evidence. Arranging marriages does not equal eugenics. Like I said earlier, provide evidence or shut up.

                      “You DARE to insinuate that *I* ever held the position that this was a desirable thing, or, as you put it, a “service”?”

                      You said this:

                      “They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities.”

                      You said they didn’t withhold medicine from them (which is a lie, obviously). You then make a point that the result of withholding medicine was that slaves acquired immunities (a positive). Now, you probably didn’t mean to type that or meant something different as it’s obvious you struggle to make any sense, but to those of us with a normal understanding of English, we would look at that and conclude that you thought slave not acquiring proper medicine was a good thing because they acquired immunities.

                      You’re off your rocker. Really far off it.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You said they didn’t arrange marriages.
                      And now you say:”

                      [me]“Why yes, they chose their slaves wives”

                      “You seem confused. Perhaps mentally not quite there.”

                      YOU seem confused, you even quoted me, I said they don’t pick YOUR wife for you. So now you’re claiming you’re a slave. Or you’re admitting to being unable to read english.

                      “This is the foundation of my argument that they utilized Eugenics to achieve the modification of the culture’s physical and mental capabilities. ”

                      “Arranging marriages does not equal eugenics. Like I said earlier, provide evidence or shut up.”

                      How does it not? Are you unaware of the result of marriages? That children result from marriage? What’s that called? Oh right: GENETICS. Say, what word does “eugenics” come from again? Something about genes… Maybe you remember?

                      [me]“You DARE to insinuate that *I* ever held the position that this was a desirable thing, or, as you put it, a “service”?”

                      “You said this:

                      [me]“They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities.”

                      “You said they didn’t withhold medicine from them (which is a lie, obviously). ”

                      You have the wrong “Them”, but I’m sure your cherry picking wasn’t subconscious. You’ve done it waaay too much for it to be a mistake you just. keep. making…

                      “You then make a point that the result of withholding medicine was that slaves acquired immunities (a positive).”

                      Oh, it’s a positive that the ones who survive will have an immunity to certain diseases? Then I’m sure you’ll be implementing that “positive” strategy with your own family, right?
                      No? It’s only good for other people? Hunh, what does that make you? (Hint: a eugenicist.)

                      “Now, you probably didn’t mean to type that or meant something different as it’s obvious you struggle to make any sense, but to those of us with a normal understanding of English, we would look at that and conclude that you thought slave not acquiring proper medicine was a good thing because they acquired immunities.”

                      You made a mistake there, you used the words “those *of us*”. You’re not a member of that group.

                      “You’re off your rocker. Really far off it.”

                      You’re not even capable of judging.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      ” I said they don’t pick YOUR wife for you.”

                      The only logical thing that would have made sense would be to say that didn’t arrange marriages. And so that is what I responded to. But I guess you meant me? Why would you say something that makes absolutely no sense. I wasn’t living back then. So you must mean they didn’t pick the wives of white people? Who knows what you mean. Yes, slavemasters did not arrange the marriages of white people. Thank you for making that point.

                      “How does it not? Are you unaware of the result of marriages? That children result from marriage? What’s that called? Oh right: GENETICS. Say, what word does “eugenics” come from again? Something about genes… Maybe you remember?”

                      The result from marriage is being married. The result from having sex is, sometimes, having children. Are you trying to say here that genetics is synonymous with eugenics? Because it’s not. Arranging marriages does not equal eugenics. You seem to struggle with definitions of words.

                      “You have the wrong “Them”, but I’m sure your cherry picking wasn’t subconscious. You’ve done it waaay too much for it to be a mistake you just. keep. making…”

                      Really? Then who did you mean by “them”?

                      “They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace wold use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities”

                      Who is “them” in that sentence? Sorry buddy. Maybe you meant something different, but your words are written in stone. You even clarified what you meant by “they don’t withhold medicine”. Can’t you read your own words? Come on, have some dignity.

                      “Oh, it’s a positive that the ones who survive will have an immunity to certain diseases?”

                      Uh…………in the previous sentence you said “them” didn’t refer to slaves. Now it seems like you’re contradicting that. It’s UNBELIEVABLE how you can’t follow your own reasoning from one sentence to the next. I mean, truly. It’s astonishing.

                      Why even bother responding if you make no sense?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “The only logical thing that would have made sense would be to say that didn’t arrange marriages.”

                      No, that doesn’t make sense either. Even if “that” was supposed to be “they”, it would still be wrong. Slavemasters clearly DID arrange marriages.

                      “And so that is what I responded to. But I guess you meant me? Why would you say something that makes absolutely no sense. I wasn’t living back then. So you must mean they didn’t pick the wives of white people? Who knows what you mean. Yes, slavemasters did not arrange the marriages of white people. Thank you for making that point.”

                      Again you manage to make it sound like someone else’s point that you’re just now beginning to gain comprehension. Apology accepted.

                      [me]“How does it not? Are you unaware of the result of marriages? That children result from marriage? What’s that called? Oh right: GENETICS. Say, what word does “eugenics” come from again? Something about genes… Maybe you remember?”

                      “The result from marriage is being married. The result from having sex is, sometimes, having children. Are you trying to say here that genetics is synonymous with eugenics? Because it’s not. Arranging marriages does not equal eugenics. You seem to struggle with definitions of words.”

                      And the result, in the 19th century, of NOT being married, and having children, was the effective end to your life. You were shunned, or other variations of becoming a pariah… And when your life was THOROUGHLY CONTROLLED (you may have forgotten, conveniently, that we’re discussing slaves?), they don’t get much personal alone time unless the slavemaster/owner decided they were married, or otherwise commanded or allowed it. Of course I’m not trying to say that genetics is synonymous with eugenics, if I were, I know well enough by now that if I don’t say something directly to you, you’re like talking to a wall. If I mean a thing, I clearly have to say it, you’re not capable of inference, analogy, allegory, or metaphor.

                      [me]“You have the wrong “Them”, but I’m sure your cherry picking wasn’t subconscious. You’ve done it waaay too much for it to be a mistake you just. keep. making…”

                      “Really? Then who did you mean by “them”?”

                      Well, let’s recap: “They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while *the rest of the populace* would use medicine to defeat their diseases…” So… “the rest of the population” would be the subject of that sentence. You’re welcome.

                      “They don’t withhold medicine from them either, meaning that while the rest of the populace would use medicine to defeat their diseases, the slaves who survived were acquiring their own immunities”

                      Who is “them” in that sentence? Sorry buddy. Maybe you meant something different, but your words are written in stone. You even clarified what you meant by “they don’t withhold medicine”. Can’t you read your own words? Come on, have some dignity.

                      You literally asked the same question twice? Didn’t think it would suck enough being taught the same thing just once? Dignity must be overrated.

                      “Oh, it’s a positive that the ones who survive will have an immunity to certain diseases?”

                      Uh…………in the previous sentence you said “them” didn’t refer to slaves. Now it seems like you’re contradicting that. It’s UNBELIEVABLE how you can’t follow your own reasoning from one sentence to the next. I mean, truly. It’s astonishing.

                      Actually the situation is QUITE believable: It’s just that the situation is YOU having trouble comprehending what I write. How far back would you like to go, so that I may correct your deficiency? Shall we go all the way back to where we were having to discuss how everyone in nature is subject to natural selection, and that we’re strictly discussing ARTIFICIAL selection through preferential treatment, and its inverse? With it so far? Incidentally, do you find any disagreement that sub-saharan Africa was devoid of vaccinations, until well past when the “civilized world” (at least in the euro-centric parlance of the age was concerned) had implemented them? Do you know how a species diverges? Do you find environment to be a contributing factor to genetic change? Not? Don’t know, and willing to admit it?

                      Why even bother responding if you make no sense?

                      I have to wonder why I keep responding despite your persistent (apparent) lack of comprehension of basic english, but I append ‘apparent’ due to the high likelihood that you’re being purely intellectually dishonest, understand the argument, but refuse to admit it, because it would end your trolling. And then of course, I come back to clear my name from the anger you ooze, during your repetitive tantrums over inability to comprehend… See the vicious circle?

                • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                  “Jimmy the Greek never said anything about intelligence. He talked about physical strength. Can’t even get your racist comments right.

                  If you have evidence to back up your statements, please, by all means, present it.

                  Until then, yes, you are racist for saying that.”

                  Aww, racist facts? The horror! Jimmy the Greek said “Because we bred them that way”. Sorry you can’t imagine how that might apply to more than one thing, trollio.

                  At least the stuff Doug linked to hits on your little hot-button word: “But I suspect I wasn’t alone in feeling very confused by this situation, very confused that we couldn’t talk about it, couldn’t educate ourselves about it.” Just call it racist, that’s the ace of spades… Heck! Some future generation might even take to calling it a “race card”!

                  • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                    ““Because we bred them that way”. Sorry you can’t imagine how that might apply to more than one thing, trollio.”

                    Are you serious? Hahaha. Really. Are you serious? So now your arguments are based on imagining things from what someone said? You can just pick and choose and you think he could have meant?

                    Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Are you serious? Hahaha. Really. Are you serious? So now your arguments are based on imagining things from what someone said? You can just pick and choose and you think he could have meant?

                      Please, stop embarrassing yourself.”

                      Please, stop beating your wife.
                      anyways, no, I’m sorry, to anyone with a working brain, paraphrasing is not equated to “imagining things”. We know what he “could have meant”. It wasn’t like he was so ashamed that he killed himself on the spot. It’s Jimmy the Greek, not Bud Dwyer.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    A look at David Epstelin’s The Sports Gene will demonstrate that genetics is a major controlling factor for athletic competence. Blacks are genetically endowed with such things as longer arms and legs for their height, a higher percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers, and a lower bodyfat level than whites. These are all huge advantages for many sports. It would be surprising that populations isolated from each other for long times would not evolve different abilitlies to handle dliffering situations. Thus the intelligence advantage to whites and northeastern orientals who had very harsh and cold conditions to live under necessitating more intelligence to survive, mate, and raise kids to survive and mate.

            • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

              Babs, lower black intelligence at least as measured on the IQ test is not controversial though the nataure vs nurture argument as to the reason blacks have lower intelligence rages on. Read Professor Richard Lynn’s works on intelligence dlifferences worldwide due to race.

  13. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Somewhere in the world someone is doing a good deed with the aid of a gun. This isn’t one if them.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/17/arkansas-man-guns-down-15-y ear-old-girl-for-egging-sons-car-as-a-prank/

    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      Your point is invalid because it glosses over all the good done with guns

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I mentioned good gun use. It’s right here in the post you responded to.

        “Somewhere in the world someone is doing a good deed with the aid of a gun”. You fail again.

        • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

          Once again, it’s your reading comprehension, not mine, that comes up short. I didn’t say you didn’t mention one. I said you glossed over it. But if you want to claim that you mentioned one, which one is it? You just can’t help but fail can you?

    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

      As I commented on your pinked page,

      “Not to mention, you can’t send aircraft carriers, hellfire missiles, nukes, submarines, helicopters, Hummers, and drones into men’s houses in the middle of the night. That task is done today, as it was in the late 30’s in Germany, by men with rifles… And is still best resisted today by… men with rifles.”

  14. BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

    Oh Bruce, you hit new lows every day. You are a grown man who lies like a child.

    “By the way, Babs the Trolling Comedian: Thanks for the laugh. You write that my analogies are “baffling” and “incomprehensible” on the one hand, and “moronic” more recently.”

    Let’s take a look at what I actually said:

    “And then you go ahead and make such a comparison. So obviously you like to as well. You are also stupid enough to make a comparison and at the same time say that it is invalid. And somehow, in that process, you still manage to blame mark of wrong doing. For the comparison you made. Which you claim is invalid.

    Baffling.”

    Where in there do I mention your analogies? I didn’t. What I did say is that your stupidity is baffling. Lie #1

    I have never said anything was incomprehensible. Lie #2

    But you are right about one thing. I did call your analogies moronic.

    “It’s quite amusing that something you find moronic, i.e. worthy of morons”

    Actually, no, moronic does not mean “worthy of morons”. Can’t even get that right. Damn, what hope is left for you? Your profound stupidity really is baffling.

  15. JeanNo Gravatar says:

    The problem I see here is, not enough guns, too many liberals.

    Maybe we should start stabbing the worthless f*ckers to death? Or use hammers, cars, or FISTS. (Each one kills more people than guns every year.)

    To go off-topic, look into r/K-Selection theory.
    Liberals = r-type selection.
    Conservatives = K-type selection.

    (Liberals won’t even believe that part.)
    SO: THEY CAN OUTBREED US. And are doing so, and making US foot the bill. (Welfare state).

    So let’s do public service: Spay your liberal today.*

    (Note: It is impossible to neuter something that has no balls.)

    +++
    I’m tired of the cr@p, people. Tired of the endless garbage flowing downhill.
    It’s time to take our country back. That means a metric ton of dead Liberal/Progressives.
    First time in HISTORY we’ll be taking lessons from the Russians. THEY proved Communism (and socialism, and fascism) didn’t work.
    NOTHING has changed: They still don’t work. And the Crony Capitalist (Cartel/Kleptocracy) here in the US doesn’t, either. Scrap them all, back to the basics, and gut the worthless eaters (L/P). Most of the ones reproducing are in the FSA. Babooshka and Mark are good examples of WELL-SPOKEN Libturds. But turds are turds.

    We’ll be better off without them. Sub-human life HAS NO VALUE.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Not worth anyone’s time. Go away.

    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

      I’ll take the compliment.

      • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

        Babs, unfortunately violence is normally the final arbiter in human affairs. You are advocating(whether you realize it or not) governmental violence for ultlimately that is how governments keep control. Men with guns force others to do their blidding. Voting is a joke even if one could get the “majority” to side with freedom for those in power control the elections. But frankly it does not matter what the majority says about MY liberty. I and all free men want the weapons to protect ourselves from the oppression of either the ruling elite or the socialist majority. To the extent that you oppose that, you are my enemy and the enemy of freedom for majority rule is still being ruled and not free!

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          Actually, no. If you remember from previous posts, I have echoed your sentiments that soldiers are pawns and that we haven’t had a war worth fighting for since WW2. So no, I don’t advocate governmental violence.

          ” I and all free men want the weapons to protect ourselves from the oppression of either the ruling elite or the socialist majority. To the extent that you oppose that, you are my enemy and the enemy of freedom for majority rule is still being ruled and not free!”

          From what you say, it seems that freedom, to you, equates to being able to own whatever weapons you want. That is absolutely nonsensical. You make good arguments at times, but this is definitely not one of them.

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Babs, first let me state that it gives me no pleasure to tell you that you are an enemy of freedom. I can see that you have the ability to think and I respect that. But I fear our apriori assumptions are hugely different. The fact that you ask me to describe how socialist government oppresses me makes me believe that you are not competent to see such oppression for it is virtually everywhere and rampant. We live in a police state that runs roughshod over the indivlidual liberty of all but the ruling ellite. The socialist mentality accepts this as necessary for “civilized” existence. As an individualist anarchist I see it as a continuation of the ages old social pattern of rulers and slaves. The bottom line is that all governments are defined by their use of coercion. In a truly free society such coercion would be difficult for all people could be well armed and thus capable of defending their freedom. You say that the belief that the indivlidual should be able to own any type weapon is not being free but being nonsensical. I see it as both a pragmatic necessity and part of the definition of being free for if you can’t own certain weapons isn’t that a limit on your freedom? I realize that most people think that freedom can never be absolute, but I think that absolute freedom should be the goal to aim for even realizing that such an anarchistic society may never happen. To aim for less is to deny that one should aim for the best. Thank you for your response.

            • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

              Again, I asked you how you were oppressed by the government.

              “In a truly free society such coercion would be difficult for all people could be well armed and thus capable of defending their freedom.”

              There is no such thing. It only lives in our imagination. Humans want power. They always have and always will. When humans get together, they form groups and power dynamics begin.

              How are you not already well armed, or able to be well armed? And what freedom do you not have, that you think weapons will restore?

              ” I realize that most people think that freedom can never be absolute, but I think that absolute freedom should be the goal to aim for even realizing that such an anarchistic society may never happen. To aim for less is to deny that one should aim for the best. Thank you for your response.”

              Not everyone wants to live off the grid, filtering their own water and eating what they hunt. If they do want that, they are free to do that. But most who have your position are hypocrites and live comfortably in a society with all the benefits an advanced nation provides with public services that they would never go without.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                How am I personally oppressed by government? I am forced to pay taxes. Government officials have many times in my life harrassed me, from relatively minor things like recently refusing to forward my mail after the local UPS Store closed thus losing me my private mailbox to major things like taking my kids away for the heinous crime of homeschooling. In a more general sense I share with everyone the oppression of millions of laws that officials use selectively to protect the ruling elite’s power and perqs like zoning or liscensing laws to prevent poor from entering many flields or building their own home. When I was a young man the government tried to draft me forcing me to go to college to avoid the draft. Even today it is the law that all men at age 18 must register for a potential draft. One could go on and on, but if you do not wish to see the oppression you will not.

                • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                  Ah, I see, you just don’t like to pay your taxes. I wouldn’t call paying your taxes “oppression”. That is a bit dramatic, don’t you think? And I thought you were living off the grid? I guess not as much as you have claimed.

                  Do you use roads? Bridges? Do you use water from a faucet? Do you purchase food in a store? Do you use medication? How do you get your power? Do you like the air you breathe? etc etc

                  ” from relatively minor things like recently refusing to forward my mail after the local UPS Store closed thus losing me my private mailbox”

                  That is oppression? Sorry the local UPS store closed down. How is the government to blame here?

                  If you want to see true oppression, kill government and let corporations make the rules. No oversight, no regulations. Maximum profit. I’m sure they’ll be nice to us.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Babs, we agree about corporations. They are government wannabes. The US Post Office refused to forward the mail I used to get at my private box stating that it was not really my mail because it was sent to a business even though it has MY name on it. Just typical BS. Actually my tax bills are small by most people’s standards. I still have to pay them. That is theft. It does not matter what the thief does with the money after he steals it. He (government) is still a thief. You may personally want to pay taxes, etc. But just because you can get a majority of people to vote the same way you do does not make it freedom . Too bad that you can’t seem to grasp that. Got to go. I will respond to anything you wrlite next time I am on line.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      No, it is not theft if you are benefiting from services that tax dollars support. Hence my examples of “Do you use roads? Bridges? Do you use water from a faucet? Do you purchase food in a store? Do you use medication? How do you get your power? Do you like the air you breathe? etc etc”

                      + all the regulations in place to prevent corporations from completely abusing us and destroying the planet in the process. Let’s have mandatory 80 hour work weeks with 10 minutes for lunch.

                      Trust me, if it were possible to put all people who don’t want to pay taxes in a bubble, we would. They can have fun building their own roads, bridges, cleaning their water, breathing air the quality of China’s, regulating their own medicine, etc.

                      Unfortunately, it’s part of the deal. Has been since the beginning.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Here, take a look at a typical day. See if you notice any patterns.

                      6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio. You know it is actually 6:30 because the National Institute of Standards and Technology keeps the official time. And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system. It ensures, for example, that radio stations do not overlap and that stations signals are not interfered with by the numerous other devices – cell phones, satellite television, wireless computers, etc. – whose signals crowd our nation’s airwaves.

                      6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition.

                      6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink. But in fact you count on your city water department to constantly monitor the quality of your water and to immediately take measures to correct any potential problems with this vital resource.

                      6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed – a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety.

                      6:45 a.m. You sit down to breakfast with your family. You are having eggs – a food that brings with it the possibility of salmonella poisoning, a serious food-borne illness affecting tens of thousands of Americans every year. But the chance of you getting sick from these eggs has now been greatly reduced by a recently passed series of strict federal rules that apply to egg producers.

                      7:00 a.m. You go into your newly renovated bathroom – one of a number of amenities that you enjoy in your house. But the fact that you can legally own your own house is something made possible by government. Think about this: “ownership” and “private property” are not things that exist in nature. These are legal constructs: things created by laws that are passed and enforced by government. You couldn’t even buy your home without a system of commercial laws concerning contracts and a government that ensures that sales contracts are enforced. So the fact that you live in your own home is, in part, a benefit of government and the rule of law.

                      7:01 a.m. Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction and it is one of the larger benefit programs run by the federal government – amounting to over $60 billion dollars a year. You can also deduct any real estate taxes you pay. These largely overlooked subsidy programs have enabled millions of people to buy their first home or to move up to a larger home than they could afford otherwise.

                      7:02 a.m. Back in the bathroom. You use the toilet and flush it. Your local government then takes care of transporting this waste, treating it, and disposing of it in an environmentally responsible manner – all without a second thought by you.

                      7:20 a.m. As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All these weather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency. Every day, on your behalf, it takes in 190,000 weather observations from surface stations, 2,700 from ships, 115,000 from aircraft, 18,000 for buoys, 250,000 from balloons, and 140 million from satellites – all just to help you plan what to wear and make sure you don’t get stuck in a snow storm. And oh yes, this agency may save your life with its hurricane and tornado warnings.

                      7:30 a.m. Before you leave home, you take your pills to control your high blood pressure. But how do you know that this medicine is safe or effective? Without the testing required by the Food and Drug Administration, you wouldn’t. And without the vigilance of the FDA, you could easily fall victim to unscrupulous marketers of unsafe and worthless medicines.

                      7:45 a.m. You put a couple of letters in your mailbox. For less than the price of a cup of coffee, a government employee will come to your house, pick up the letters, and have them delivered in a few days to someone on the other side of the country. A pretty good deal.

                      7:50 a.m. You and your child walk across the lawn to your car and arrive without getting dog poop on your shoes. A small but welcome achievement that is made possible now by a local law that requires people to clean up after their pets. Also, the reason your neighborhood is not plagued by stray cats and dogs is that your local Animal Control officer is on the job dealing with this constant problem.

                      7:52 a.m. You help your young child into your car and you pull out of your driveway. You have now entered an experience that is improved by government in almost more ways that you can count. Driving your car is inherently dangerous. But it is made immensely safer by government laws and regulations, such as those mandating child safety seats and the use of seat belts – rules that have saved tens of thousands of lives. Driving down the street is also made much safer by a local government that enforces traffic laws and discourages people from driving too fast or driving drunk. Most state governments also minimize your risk of being run into by someone driving on bald tires or with faulty brakes by requiring regular inspections of all vehicles. And state driver’s license examinations ensure that all drivers are at least minimally competent and can actually see the road. In addition, if you are hit by another car, the potentially disastrous costs of an accident are covered because the government requires that all drivers to have auto insurance. In fact, without this extensive network of government laws and regulations covering automobiles and driving, it would be foolish for us to ever venture out on the road.

                      8:15 a.m. You drop your child off at day-care. It took a long search to find a good program and it is an expensive one, but it is worth it so you can feel confident that your child is in a safe, nurturing, and stimulating environment while you are at work. One of the reasons you can afford this program is the $3,000 child care tax credit you get from the federal government every year. Equally important, your child benefits from the fact that most state governments now enforce day-care requirements for group size, ratios of children per staff member, teacher training, nutrition, health, safety, and space requirements.

                      8:35 a.m. Your trip on the freeway is much safer due to federal restrictions on the number of hours that truck drivers can operate their vehicles without resting. Thousands of people die every year from truck-related traffic accidents, but it would be much worse without these regulations that keep sleepy truck drivers off the road.
                      8:55 a.m. You arrive at work and take the elevator. You just assume that the elevator is safe; and it is, thanks in part to the annual elevator inspections conducted by your state government. It is probably nothing you will appreciate until the next time the elevator breaks down with you inside, and that makes you think a bit more about the reliability of elevators.

                      9:00 a.m. While at work, your rights and wellbeing are constantly protected by a wide-ranging network of federal and state laws. The Occupation Safety and Health Act works to protect you from unsafe and unhealthy work conditions. Federal law protects you from workplace discrimination based on race, gender, religion, national origin, or disability. State laws may also require your employer to purchase worker’s compensation insurance so that you are covered in case you are injured on the job

                      Noon. For lunch you have your usual sandwich and microwaveable cup of soup. But why did you choose that particular soup? Perhaps because it was low in salt and fat. But how do you know that? Because the government requires all food packaging to have a truthful and easily readable panel on the label that supplies you with the nutritional information necessary to make a good choice. Food companies tell you what they want you to know about their products, but the Food and Drug Administration’s labeling requirements tell you what you need to know to eat in a healthy way.

                      How do you know the lettuce in your sandwich is not laced with unhealthy doses of pesticides? Because the Department of Agriculture has developed and is enforcing uniform standards for pesticide residue on raw foods.
                      Microwave ovens are potentially very dangerous machines, but you can use this one with confidence because of detailed government regulations that limit the maximum amount of radiation leakage and mandate two different safety interlocks that prevent its operation with the door ajar or open.

                      12:45 p.m. After lunch, you walk to a nearby ATM and get some cash out of your account – and your money is actually there. That wasn’t always true during the economic depression of the 1930s when many banks failed. But your money is safe — as it was during the recent financial and banking crisis — because the government guarantees your deposits. In addition, those pieces of paper you put in your wallet are only worth something thanks to the federal government. Our monetary system is entirely a government creation, and the value of money is only maintained because the government regulates the money supply and protects it from counterfeiters. Quite an important service really.

                      1:00 p.m. Back at work you hear rumors about a new downsizing plan being talked about by management – a fairly typical occurrence in these days of heightened national and international corporate competition. You know your job is one that could be lost, but you also know that you will be eligible for state-mandated unemployment insurance should that happen. This is just another way that government helps you to cope with the economic risks and uncertainties of a modern economy.

                      3:00 p.m. On a break, you call your elderly mother in the hospital to check on how she is recovering from her broken hip. Thanks to Medicare, her medical expenses are covered and she does not have to worry about this becoming a financial disaster for her. Thanks to the federal Family and Medical Leave act, you will also have the right to take several days off to tend to your mother when she comes home from the hospital.

                      3:10 p.m. You call to arrange for a physical therapist to work with your mother when she comes out of the hospital, and again this is paid for by Medicare. And you can be reasonably confident that she will get good therapy because your state Department of Health has a program of examining and licensing these therapists in order to ensure the quality of their work.

                      5:00 p.m. You leave work—thanks to the government-mandated 40-hour workweek. Labor Department regulations prevent your company from making you work past 5:00 unless it pays you overtime.

                      5:15 p.m. You stop at a local gas station to fill up. The very fact that this oil company offers this gas to you for sale is dependent on the existence of certain government laws. This company would not do business in your town without a legal system that assures them that you will pay for any gas you pump into your car. This economic exchange – like buying your house – would not be taking place without a system of statutory and common law that protects private property and regulates sales transactions. This simple sale is covered by Article Two of the Uniform Commercial Code – dozens of pages of laws that regulate every phase of a transaction for the sale of goods and provide remedies for problems that may arise.

                      5:15 p.m. You pump 15 gallons of 87 octane gas into your car and pay for it. But how do you know that you really got 15 gallons, and not 14½? And that the gas was actually 87 octane? This is only ensured by the presence of that little sticker on the gas pump that shows that a worker from your city’s Division of Weights and Measures has inspected the pump and the gas. These public employees make sure that you get what you pay for – from a pound of sliced turkey breast to a carat of diamond – by constantly testing and inspecting all commercial meters and scales, and by verifying the accuracy of checkout scanners. This is a crucial service, since more than half of the income of the average family is used to purchase necessities bought by weight or measure or scanned at a checkout station.

                      5:15 p.m. How do you know the price you are paying for this gasoline is a fair and competitive one? In many states, the Department of Attorney General has been responsible for finding and prosecuting cases of price manipulation and price fixing by oil companies and distributors.

                      5:30 p.m. As you drive home, you notice the tree-lined streets and the nice houses in your neighborhood – generally a pretty good place to live. Thanks again to government. Without zoning rules, you might have an auto body shop or a fast-food outlet move in next door. Or worse yet, a fertilizer plant or a toxic waste site. But there are no noxious smells in the air, no excessive and dangerous traffic on your street – thanks to your government. Pleasant and livable neighborhoods are only possible with extensive government planning and zoning regulation.

                      5:35 p.m. As you approach your house, you see your child coming down the sidewalk. The government-provided sidewalk. The sidewalk that allows your child to walk to the neighbor’s house down the street to play with a friend without the risk of being hit by a car.

                      5:45 p.m. You go for a jog in your local public park.

                      6:30 p.m. You take your family out for dinner at a local pizza restaurant. You enjoy a good meal and no one gets sick from E. coli or other food-borne illnesses. This is in large part because your local government conducts regular inspections of all food establishments to protect the health of customers.

                      7:30 p.m. Back at your house. You settle in for a quiet evening at home – one that is undisturbed by those annoying telemarketers calling you up to try to sell you something. This is because you have signed up with a state or federal no-call registry – a government service now enjoyed by over 60 million Americans.

                      8:00 p.m. You do a quick check of your e-mail – just one of the many services you enjoy over the internet every day. We all tend to think of the internet as the product of those talented and imaginative entrepreneurs in the high-tech companies. But the internet actually began with government programs that created ARPANET and later NSFNET, early computer networking systems that developed the software and networking infrastructure that form the foundations of today’s internet. The government also helped to fund research that led to web browsers like Internet Explorer and search engines like Google.

                      11:00 p.m. You go to bed. During your sleep, you are protected by a smoke detector that your city requires to be installed in every residence. Maybe you would have bought one of these yourself, but this law helps to ensure that everyone is protected from the dangers of fire.

                      4:00 a.m. You are asleep in your comfy bed. Unlike that time you stayed in a small inn in Costa Rica, where you were woken up regularly at 4 in the morning by the roosters crowing in the neighborhood. By law, no one can keep roosters in your neighborhood and so you remain in blissful slumber.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Yeah, I noticed a pattern. Actually I noticed two patterns. One pattern is that you didn’t mention that the trains run on time, something that Government Supremacists usually mention. The second is that nearly every episode contains material that is either wrong or at least debatable. At 7:00 AM you mention how wonderful it is to own your own home. Except that you don’t. You owe property taxes on it, which if you don’t pay, the government repossesses your house. In other words, you rent your house from the government, and this rent is the property tax. If you don’t pay this rent, you will be evicted like any other renter who gets behind in his rent. In other words, if you don’t pay it, you discover who really does own it.

                      Churches and a few other entities, notably including government itself, has allodial title to their lands and don’t pay property taxes. They really, actually, own their own land. But you and I don’t. We own, say, our TV set or our pianos, free and clear. We don’t have to pay anyone to keep them. But not our houses.

                      Incidentally, freedom of contract can be had without government. Two parties agree to something in writing, and anyone (not only a magistrate) can determine whether the parties held to their agreement or not, if a dispute arises. Called arbitration. Which need not be performed by government agents.

                      So you entire post also amounts to huge, multifaceted circular argument: Government does all these things, which, individually, are essential, and, since these things are presently done by government, the government is therefore also essential. Being a grand circular argument, your post does nothing to refute the case that no entity, other than government, could possibly perform any of those functions. Without government, no one would keep time, airlines would crash into each other in mid air, etc. Why? Profit! (No doubt.)

                      Here’s an analogy to help you understand it:

                      Just kidding! They don’t work for you!

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Furthermore, government has also prohibited other entities from performing some of the acts that you list. So, it’s telling of you to plead for the beneficence of a monopoly, that enforces its supremacy at gunpoint. Yeah, we need those monopolies like Japan needs Fukushima.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Babs the Troll writes: “No, it is not theft if you are benefiting from services that tax dollars support.”

                      Well, when people face armed robbers, then, it isn’t theft either. Because they benefit from the services that giving the money away brings, namely, for the criminal to stop brandishing (couldn’t resist) the gun at the robbery victim, and instead, leaving. Given the benefit of being free of the robber, the victim benefits directly by payment, therefore, it is not theft. It’s just wealth redistribution, in the name of social justice. Let’s see, where have I heard that before?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      By the way, Babs The Troll, plagiarism is unethical.

                      Then again, you are a troll, so lack of ethics is to be expected.

                      You ‘somehow’ ‘neglected’ to furnish a link to ‘your’ long, circularly-argued post: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1 A web project of Douglas J. Amy, Professor of Politics at Mount Holyoke College

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      More ad hominem. Intellectual honesty doesn’t seem to be one of your strengths.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      Another lie. I just proved Babs is a plagiarist. It wouldn’t matter if I delivered that message with flowers or a box of poo, and no matter what I call him, the fact remains that he’s a plagiarist. You can call that label an ad hominem, but it remains a fact.

                      Interesting, too, is that you accuse *me* of intellectual dishonesty, when it is your comrade who just committed one of the highest crimes in the intellectual arena.

                      Your double standard is showing. Then again, if not for double standards, you’d have no standards at all.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      … unless, of course, Babs The Troll is none other than the “esteemed” professor himself. In which case he will need to out himself in a verifiable way to establish that he isn’t a plagiarist, after all.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Did you think I wrote that myself? You have two options:

                      1. You thought I did, making you an idiot.
                      2. You didn’t think I did, you knew it came from somewhere else, thus you knew I wasn’t trying to plagiarize anything. But, being the idiot you are, you haven’t thought through the basic logic in this scenario, and so you try and call me out for plagiarizing, not realizing what it says about you.

                      Which option do you choose?

                      Also, very nice post:

                      “Well, when people face armed robbers, then, it isn’t theft either. Because they benefit from the services that giving the money away brings, namely, for the criminal to stop brandishing (couldn’t resist) the gun at the robbery victim, and instead, leaving. Given the benefit of being free of the robber, the victim benefits directly by payment, therefore, it is not theft. It’s just wealth redistribution, in the name of social justice. Let’s see, where have I heard that before?”

                      You haven’t heard it before. That’s where. Definitely ranks up there in the top 10 stupidest things you’ve said.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s just so typical of you to (1) do something unethical, (2) get caught, (3) get scarce for a while, but then (4) you decloak and come out swinging, offering a false dilemma in which both “choices” result in a need to insult me.

                      Churlish, childish, and fully befitting of a troll.

                      You are unworthy of any other response. You are a most unpleasant person.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “It’s just so typical of you to (1) do something unethical,”

                      Bahahahaha. Can’t stop laughing. I sure hope you have citations for every post of facts! You do….right?

                      “get scarce for a while, but then”

                      Sorry I didn’t respond to you sooner. You have my most sincere apologies.

                      What’s the false dilemma you describe? Plagiarizing means that the person copies someones work in order to pass it off as their own. So you must have either thought I was trying to do that, which was option 1, or you weren’t, and didn’t think it through and are the idiot that you are, which was option 2.

                      It’s rather simple. You still haven’t picked.

                      “You are unworthy of any other response. You are a most unpleasant person.”

                      You tell me I’m unworthy of any other response in a post that is responding to me. Do you not see how stupid that makes you sound? In case you didn’t, don’t worry, I’m here to tell you. It makes you look very, very stupid.

        • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

          ” I and all free men want the weapons to protect ourselves from the oppression of either the ruling elite or the socialist majority. ”

          Can you also explain how you are oppressed?

          • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

            Babs, been snowed in for nearly a week. Your typical day has so many differences from what I actually live and how we could live under anarchy that I hardly know where to begin. I am off the grid so the government does not do a lot of the things for me you think of as normal. I am happier for it. I like living where roosters can crow at daybreak. I am appalled by the lazy punks who do not get up early and appreciate the day. I am also healthier for it. so many other things wrong like your assumption that OSHA helps people. I worked for 30 years in construction and hated OSHA for beling ineffectual assholes. Most of the controls you find positive I hate. As I pointed out before, our a priori assumptions about life differ so much that we really do not have enough commonality to have a proper discussion. I hope you learn better, but I doubt it will occur at this late date. Please realize that everything positive you see government doing is either unnecessary or could be done better by private enterprise.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              ” I am off the grid so the government does not do a lot of the things for me you think of as normal. I am happier for it.”

              Do you drive on roads? Do you live with protected airspace? If you take a pill for a headache does it kill you?

              This self-made-man stuff is total bullshit.

              • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                Mark, like Babs you and I have largely dliffering a priori assumptions. I can’t avoid using lots of governmental things anymore than you can. The dlifference is that I realize that government is not necessary or even desirable for human happiness. By the way, self sufficiency may not be totally feasible, but to the extent possible it is very psychologically satisfying. I love the fact that I built my own home with my own hands. Government screw us all by placing so many obstacles in the way of individuals building their own homes. Just one more areawhere the socialist mentality sees government “protection” and free men see governmental interference.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  I would agree that we have different a priori assumptions. I have yet to see how anarchy does anything other than remove one government in favor of another

                  If you damage my property or person, what recourse do I have?

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark, I can see where anyone raised in today’s world would assume that. We are taught that anarcy equals chaos. It is also likely that many people will compete ato be a new government if a group tries to be anarchistic. That does not mean that the goal of anarchism is unworthy. It is the only “system” that allows for all other non-coercive systems to operate within it. As to how one protects property “rights”, this can all be done privately as many libertarians have written about. I see nothing government does as being both positive and a natural monopoly of government. Got to go. Another day.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Mark, I can see where anyone raised in today’s world would assume that. We are taught that anarcy equals chaos. It is also likely that many people will compete ato be a new government if a group tries to be anarchistic. That does not mean that the goal of anarchism is unworthy. It is the only “system” that allows for all other non-coercive systems to operate within it. As to how one protects property “rights”, this can all be done privately as many libertarians have written about. I see nothing government does as being both positive and a natural monopoly of government. Got to go. Another day.”

                      I know the difference between anarchy and chaos. That is not the issue.

                      A “private” solution is nothing more than a governing body with a different name. Being private changes nothing.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “I know the difference between anarchy and chaos. That is not the issue.

                      A “private” solution is nothing more than a governing body with a different name. Being private changes nothing.”

                      >Says he knows the difference.
                      >Immediately proves he’s wrong.

                      Being private means you’re free to not pay a guy if you don’t like the deal. You can go to a different guy, and make them compete.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “As to how one protects property “rights”, this can all be done privately as many libertarians have written about.”

                      Aha, the more money you have the more justice you can purchase. Bernie Madoff would have loved such a system.

                      Nope, free enterprise justice seems about as unjust as you can get. That’s the problem with anarchy. It trods on the weak.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Being private means you’re free to not pay a guy if you don’t like the deal. You can go to a different guy, and make them compete.”

                      How does anarchy deal with monopolies?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Aha, the more money you have the more justice you can purchase. Bernie Madoff would have loved such a system.

                      Nope, free enterprise justice seems about as unjust as you can get. That’s the problem with anarchy. It trods on the weak.”

                      You really think Bernie Madoff would have survived long in an Anarchy? Bernie Madoff is the ultimate proof that putting government in charge of making something “safe” is a fucking failure. Look up assassination markets, and you’ll see what Madoff’s fate would have been in an anarchy.

                      “How does anarchy deal with monopolies?”

                      Depends which kind. Do you mean the kind that survives by providing something better than anyone else, for less?
                      Or the kind that forces others out of business through regulatory capture, and then undercutting? (successful) Capitalists are just… smarter than to fall to that. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_Monopol y

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Al Capone anyone? You don’t think that someone with enough money amassed couldn’t use that money to get their way? You have made an a priori assumption about Maddof and his situation. He’d adjust his game accordingly given anarchy.

                      You put far too much trust in your anarchy buddies. Anarchies create a power vacuum that dooms them to failure. That’s why the ones that have sprung up over the centuries never get very large or last very long.

                      Anarchy crushes the weak. It’s probably why you guys want guns.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “Depends which kind. Do you mean the kind that survives by providing something better than anyone else, for less?”

                      Less than what? There is no “anyone else” in a monopoly. That’s why it has mono as a prefix.

                      “Or the kind that forces others out of business through regulatory capture, and then undercutting? (successful) Capitalists are just… smarter than to fall to that.”

                      The ones that aren’t dealing in commodities.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Less than what? There is no “anyone else” in a monopoly. That’s why it has mono as a prefix.

                      You can’t force everyone out of a market without violence or superior customer service. Monopoly isn’t a term created by an English major, it’s coined by an economist, in whose view it meant that one agency controlled THE MAJORITY of a market-share, NOT the entirety of it.

                      [me]“Or the kind that forces others out of business through regulatory capture, and then undercutting? (successful) Capitalists are just… smarter than to fall to that.”

                      “The ones that aren’t dealing in commodities.”

                      Oh? So can you monopolize other categories, like labor? How does a person “acquire” other people’s labor?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “What is the reason arbitration exists?”

                      Simplest terms? Or would you prefer me to cover all the outliers, too? In the simplest terms, because parties compete, and sometimes conflict, and if they act unilaterally, it may make their customers and others who do business with them VERY nervous. The first meta-level of course is that ARBITRATORS should have to compete for business by providing the best service, as well. How would a monopoly marketshare arbitration service act, if it didn’t have to worry about the ability for others to come along and offer a better service? Let’s ask government. Didn’t like the Trayvon Martin trial outcome? Well, suck it the fuck up, government is the only one “allowed” to judge that sort of thing. Same for OJ Simpson, and hundreds of other shitty courtroom crap, or early releases due to botched evidence.

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s telling that Mark badmouths monopolies, says they’re the inevitable outcome of anarchic societies, and then proposes as the solution to the “problem” … yep, you guessed it, government agencies which are enforced monopoly providers of those services. At least he’s consistent with his double standards; monopolies are only bad when they aren’t government. When they are government, then they’re not only not bad, they’re good and proper, necessary and vital.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “Al Capone anyone? You don’t think that someone with enough money amassed couldn’t use that money to get their way? You have made an a priori assumption about Maddof and his situation. He’d adjust his game accordingly given anarchy.”

                      So how much money is “enough”? Money only buys what people will sell. How much of Osama bin Laden’s fortune would you have accepted to be his butt-boy? He was pretty damn rich. One possible answer is that not everything is for sale… But you don’t appear to subscribe to that… So…

                      And on the other hand, you seem to be unable to connect the violence you THINK anarchy will entail with the level of respectability people will have to achieve not to find themselves fair-game to be subjected to it.
                      What assumption do you think I’ve made about Madoff that wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny? Go ahead, don’t be afraid to state your assumptions for discussion…

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      It is a particularly vicious smear (i.e. typical for Mark The Troll) to attribute Madoff to anarchy, when in fact not only did Madoff come into existence and indeed thrive in the present, regulated and enforced environment, but, indeed, the SEC had even been tipped off about irregularities in his accounting, and the fact that he couldn’t have possibly been doing what he claimed to have been doing, because there wasn’t enough volume in the options he claimed to have been trading, to generate the profits he claimed to have been generating by that method. Importantly, the SEC had been tipped off about Madoff for *more than a DECADE* and they did nothing. It was only when redemptions exceeded subscriptions in the financial crisis of 2008 that the gig was up and he couldn’t meet the redemption requests. Furthermore, JP Morgan held his accounts and not only must have known about what he was doing, they were even fined $2 billion for their part. But, no one went to jail – and this under the present system with government and laws and regulations and ‘enforcement,’ etc. Meanwhile, employees of the SEC engage in insider trading and outperform the market. Thank heavens for the regulators! What would we do without them? I mean, who would watch midget porn while on the taxpayer dole, if not for the SEC?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      And then Madoff’s sentencing was completely irrelevant, because at $60,000,000,000 / 150 years = 1 year of sentence for every $400,000,000 stolen. Imagine me getting 6 months’ sentence for stealing $200,000,000 from investors? Government fucked his case up from top to bottom.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      And on the other hand, you seem to be unable to connect the violence you THINK anarchy will entail with the level of respectability people will have to achieve not to find themselves fair-game to be subjected to it.

                      That sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I find it amusing that as soon as I mention problems with anarchy that the specter if chaos and violence come up. Looks like a knee jerk reaction.

                      Anarchy allows the powerful to enforce their will on the weak.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “government agencies which are enforced monopoly providers of those services.”

                      You’ve been listening to republicans too much. A government is not a business, A monopoly is a business. One should not make a profit, the other must make a profit.

                      Pyrodicue gets it wrong too. Any monopoly threatened by a smaller competitor providing better service will eliminate that competition, thus remaining the one source, able to set its own price and level if service.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You’ve been listening to republicans too much. A government is not a business, A monopoly is a business. One should not make a profit, the other must make a profit.”

                      In other words, you would MANDATE that a government do things less efficiently than a business. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

                      “Pyrodicue gets it wrong too. Any monopoly threatened by a smaller competitor providing better service will eliminate that competition, thus remaining the one source, able to set its own price and level if service.”

                      By what avenue can they “eliminate” that competition? While government is in place, they prepare for legislative barriers, and then lobby to have them enacted, leaving hurdles too big for a littler guy. But you’re for that, right? Otherwise, I’ve already described how the ‘little guy’ can fight back by buying up the ‘dumped’ product. The other methods are simply to go on hiatus and concentrate on other products until the bigger guy gets tired of underselling themselves, and go back to business as usual. Meanwhile, the consumer is getting the best deals of his life, and anyone against that can just raise your hands now…

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “And on the other hand, you seem to be unable to connect the violence you THINK anarchy will entail with the level of respectability people will have to achieve not to find themselves fair-game to be subjected to it.

                      That sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. I find it amusing that as soon as I mention problems with anarchy that the specter if chaos and violence come up. Looks like a knee jerk reaction.”

                      So you’ve brought up Al Capone, but you want to claim that *I* began discussing violence? That sentence makes perfect sense. What you mean is that YOU don’t understand it.

                      “Anarchy allows the powerful to enforce their will on the weak.””

                      GOVERNMENT allows that, but you’re just fine with it.
                      You know what allows the weak to resist?
                      Guns.

                  • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                    “If you damage my property or person, what recourse do I have?”

                    If you’re ACTUALLY asking, in order to learn a thing, here:
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      What is the reason arbitration exists?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Arbitration exists to avoid litigation. Litigation in the form of courts. One can shop around for arbitration all they want but if the outcome is unacceptable litigation OS the only recourse. If course you guys have your guns…

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      If you don’t recognize litigation as a form of binding arbitration, you’re not paying attention.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      How is said binding enforced?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      because government will FUCKING MURDER YOU if you don’t comply!

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      So a government is needed to make arbitration work. Gotcha…

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “So a government is needed to make arbitration work. Gotcha…”

                      Is it willful ignorance or merely the crap reading comprehension that you’ve amply demonstrated so often before?

                      Government is NOT needed, to make arbitration work. Were your parents duly authorized government representatives whenever they intervened in disputes between siblings? …Did that mean that they couldn’t make you do anything?

                      Follow-up question: Where DID their authority come from? Guns? Or something we call “property ownership”, under the guise of “While you live under my roof, you follow my rules”?

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Where DID their authority come from?”

                      It came from the founding fathers. You know. Those who created the government? The ones who presided over it? The ones who allowed the gun control that I have shown in the founding era? Those guys.

                      On another topic, why are you so anti-government considering you are an ex-soldier. You did the government’s bidding. You did their dirty work. You were the ultimate pawn. So how exactly does that translate into you hating them and wanting anarchy?

                    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                      I would suggest that no one respond to the plagiarist Babooshka.

                    • PyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      It’s fine, Bruce, she thinks I’m an ex-soldier, so that’s wrong in any case, and will never understand that dead men can only ever bind themselves. Otherwise what would stop me from writing a brand new “social contract”, getting 30 rich white Protestant landowners to sign it, and declaring it binding upon everyone who lived between two oceans?

                      After all, if they didn’t like it, surely they could always leave. ;)

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “I know plenty with two. Sorry, did you think those blankets weren’t good for two? After my military time, I moved into the Texas prison system for a while, so I have way too much familiarity with both prison walls and wool blankets.”

                      -Pyrodice

                      You were military. You did the government’s bidding. Specifically, their dirty work. You were paid by the government, probably still are. Aren’t you proud?

                      “Otherwise what would stop me from writing a brand new “social contract”, getting 30 rich white Protestant landowners to sign it, and declaring it binding upon everyone who lived between two oceans?”

                      Nothing. Go for it. Are you denying that our founding fathers set up our government?

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “You were military.”
                      And that’s not what you said, nor what I disputed.

                      “You did the government’s bidding.”
                      So do you. They want your money, you give it to them. Keep working, slave.

                      “Specifically, their dirty work.”
                      Nah, I was smart enough to get one of the easy jobs that only has SHTF days when you *don’t* stay on top of your job. Batting 0 still.

                      “You were paid by the government, probably still are.”
                      I’m not.

                      “Aren’t you proud?”
                      I had enough pride that I don’t, anymore. Yes. But I guess the concept of people improving themselves, adding new information, and changing their minds from libertarianism to anarchy will stymie you as it has all along.

                      “Nothing. Go for it. Are you denying that our founding fathers set up our government?”

                      What makes it “our” government? Does it ever do what “we”… I mean “I” want? It’s a gang writ large, who impose their will over me based on where I was born, and won’t let me leave unless I wish to beg them for paperwork, which would basically concede that they owned me.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “And that’s not what you said, nor what I disputed.”

                      I know what I said and I know what technicality you were trying to lean on to excuse you of the truth: you did the government’s dirty work. You were their pawn. But you want to try and get out of it by saying, but hey! I wasn’t a soldier! What a joke. Look at you, still trying to wiggle out of it. It’s like saying, sure, I was a Nazi, but I had this deskjob blah blah.

                      “I had enough pride that I don’t, anymore. Yes. But I guess the concept of people improving themselves, adding new information, and changing their minds from libertarianism to anarchy will stymie you as it has all along.”

                      And you can’t do that in the corporate world? Isn’t that your argument? Hahahaha. Look at it slapping you in the face. Slap. Slap. Slap. No, you chose to work for the government. Not only the government, but the military. The ones who force our will on other people. We take their freedom away and you are a contributing member. All while speaking for freedom. Hahahaha. Slap Slap Slap. But hey, continue to keep rationalizing joining the US military. It’s great fun to watch.

                      “What makes it “our” government?”

                      By the fact that you have a US passport and can vote here. Are you asking a factual question or are you trying to infer with your question that the representatives don’t stand for what you do. Well, that’s too bad. Maybe try and start a grass roots movement like the tea party. Nah, you’d rather sit there and bitch.

                      “who impose their will over me based on where I was born, and won’t let me leave unless I wish to beg them for paperwork, which would basically concede that they owned me.”

                      So you would rather live under a system that you profess to hate, all because you are too proud to get a passport? Is that what you are admitting here? Oh yea, getting a passport makes you a huge slave to the government. Seems like all you have is bitching. Bitching about the system and bitching about leaving the system. Then what do you want? Government to dissolve itself so you can be happy?

                      What none of you anarchists understand is that government is not the problem, power and influence are the problem. Without government, other people will band together to control power in order to control people. It’s the way we are programmed. People want power. Whenever there is power to be had, which is always,, there will be abuse of power. Whenever groups of people come together, someone takes power. Someone takes a leadership position. And someone will abuse their power. Government, corporate, and everything in between. You guys just can’t see the bigger picture.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “By the fact that you have a US passport and can vote here.”

                      Correction – US citizenship and the right to vote. I forget how many people don’t have passports.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Nothing but plagiarism and further idiocy.

                      “I know what I said and I know what technicality you were trying to lean on to excuse you of the truth”

                      Yes, one man’s excuse is another man’s reason. Hint: You’re not my fucking boss, so you don’t just get to call ‘reasons’ ‘technicalities’, because you feel like it.

                      “you did the government’s dirty work.”

                      Why do YOU think it’s dirty work? After all, *I’M* the anarchist, but I wasn’t then. I just collected a paycheck and got an electronics education, held down a computer operations and repair job… right? State the nature of YOUR objection to it… Not the one I’ve acquired since then. And, in part, the reason I left…

                      “You were their pawn. But you want to try and get out of it by saying, but hey! I wasn’t a soldier! What a joke. Look at you, still trying to wiggle out of it. It’s like saying, sure, I was a Nazi, but I had this deskjob blah blah.”

                      Yes, Godwin’s law is such a trump card…
                      For the other guy.

                      “And you can’t do that in the corporate world? Isn’t that your argument?”

                      Try as hard as I might, I haven’t been able to GO BACK IN TIME yet to UNenlist before I did it… If you’re holding that technology in reserve, and not sharing with us, then apparently you quite heartily agree with Ayn Rand’s “Virtue of Selfishness”, and we can discuss that. Otherwise, share that shit.

                      “Hahahaha. Look at it slapping you in the face. Slap. Slap. Slap.”

                      Yeah, that really drives your point home.

                      If your point was that you’re a ten year old.

                      “No, you chose to work for the government. Not only the government, but the military. The ones who force our will on other people. We take their freedom away and you are a contributing member.”

                      Are? Were. Linear time has never seemed so confusing to anyone I’ve ever witnessed since the actors for the wormhole aliens on Deep Space Nine. At least they could voluntarily stop when the day was finished.

                      “All while speaking for freedom.”

                      Yeah, 12 years of public school did a number on me, they had me convinced for a while that, as a Libertarian, I would still be able to “support and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” …What they didn’t at ALL tell me is that if I ever tried, I’d get transferred to Adak Alaska and promptly forgotten about. Which is a MARVELOUS way to get a Libertarian to realize that government words only mean things to other people, never to themselves, and that anarchism is the logical endgame to promoting simple honesty between people. But you hardly seem to know anything about that.

                      “Hahahaha. Slap Slap Slap. But hey, continue to keep rationalizing joining the US military. It’s great fun to watch.”

                      I’m not rationalizing it, this is a cautionary tale. Sounds a bit like this one:

                      “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
                      ― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America’s Most Decorated Soldier

                      [me]“What makes it “our” government?”

                      “By the fact that you have a US passport and can vote here.”

                      I can’t vote here. I DO have a passport, but the story takes an awful long time to explain, and I don’t think I owe a complete fucking asshat like you a campfire tale like this one. Suffice it to say that just like the people of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico, I cannot vote, and likewise cannot be made to pay federal income tax. So given that, I ask again: What makes it “our” government?

                      “Well, that’s too bad. Maybe try and start a grass roots movement like the tea party. Nah, you’d rather sit there and bitch.” You know what I do for about an hour out of any given week, but you ASSUME that I do nothing for the rest of the week. You ALSO seem to assume that spreading awareness of any particular issue is “doing nothing”, to which I have to wonder how you got through sex-ed and learned nothing. After all, it was just people spreading awareness.

                      [me]“who impose their will over me based on where I was born, and won’t let me leave unless I wish to beg them for paperwork, which would basically concede that they owned me.”

                      “So you would rather live under a system that you profess to hate, all because you are too proud to get a passport?”

                      I have a passport.

                      “Is that what you are admitting here?”

                      No, as usual you seem content to answer your own false-choice questions. Listening would be incredibly laborious for you, wouldn’t it?

                      “Oh yea, getting a passport makes you a huge slave to the government.”

                      Asking permission for ANYTHING puts you at someone else’s whims. Slavery happens by degrees, too, you know. If taking 100% of someone’s income is slavery, at what percentage is it NOT slavery? 99%? 50%? 1%?
                      the roman slaves worked half their day for the master, half the day for themselves, else they’d not have eaten… The median American pays north of 50% of his income to any of the taxes he encounters in daily life… So where’s your boundary? up closer to that 99% number?

                      “Seems like all you have is bitching. Bitching about the system and bitching about leaving the system. Then what do you want? Government to dissolve itself so you can be happy?”

                      See earlier where you haven’t a fucking clue what I do all day, and are making an ass out of yourself over it. I want government to dissolve so that I won’t have to worry about MISTAKENLY committing one of those “three felonies a day” that any given agency could get a hair across their ass and slap me with, whether I had any intent to violate a law or not.
                      http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

                      “What none of you anarchists understand is that government is not the problem, power and influence are the problem. Without government, other people will band together to control power in order to control people. It’s the way we are programmed. People want power. Whenever there is power to be had, which is always,, there will be abuse of power. Whenever groups of people come together, someone takes power. Someone takes a leadership position. And someone will abuse their power. Government, corporate, and everything in between. You guys just can’t see the bigger picture.”

                      In other words, your worst-case scenario is that someone *might* form a government. Well, at least you’re conceding that they’re a worst-case scenario. and yes: People with ill intent DO gravitate towards power. What’s the current nexus of power? Yup. Government.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Yes, one man’s excuse is another man’s reason. Hint: You’re not my fucking boss, so you don’t just get to call ‘reasons’ ‘technicalities’, because you feel like it.”

                      What are you talking about? Were you or were you not the government’s bitch? Yes, you were.

                      “Why do YOU think it’s dirty work? After all, *I’M* the anarchist, but I wasn’t then. I just collected a paycheck and got an electronics education, held down a computer operations and repair job… right? State the nature of YOUR objection to it… Not the one I’ve acquired since then. And, in part, the reason I left…”

                      You joined the government. You worked for them. You worked for them in the most anti-freedom department they have, the military. But now you are for freedom and against government. That’s great and all, but that does not excuse your past. So you should be owning up to it instead of trying to make excuses like the bitch you are.

                      “Yes, Godwin’s law is such a trump card…
                      For the other guy.”

                      Like this quote of yours? “So when it gets bad enough that your choices are Hitler or Stalin…”

                      “What they didn’t at ALL tell me is that if I ever tried, I’d get transferred to Adak Alaska and promptly forgotten about. Which is a MARVELOUS way to get a Libertarian to realize that government words only mean things to other people, never to themselves, and that anarchism is the logical endgame to promoting simple honesty between people. But you hardly seem to know anything about that.”

                      From that I gather you were mad that you got transferred to a dead end post in the middle of nowhere. Well, cry me a river. You were some nut job they didn’t want but couldn’t get rid of any other way.

                      “I can’t vote here. I DO have a passport, but the story takes an awful long time to explain, and I don’t think I owe a complete fucking asshat like you a campfire tale like this one. Suffice it to say that just like the people of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico, I cannot vote, and likewise cannot be made to pay federal income tax. So given that, I ask again: What makes it “our” government?”

                      Ok, so you got the piece of paper that you were talking about in your earlier post that made you a slave to government. So I assumed you didn’t have one. But now you admit you do, and that you are their slave, according to your words. Alright. And no, I don’t give a fuck why you don’t have the right to vote any more. And you don’t have to pay federal income tax? And you’re STILL bitching about taxes? UNBELIEVABLE! Hahaha.

                      “I have a passport”

                      Great, then leave!

                      “In other words, your worst-case scenario is that someone *might* form a government. Well, at least you’re conceding that they’re a worst-case scenario. and yes: People with ill intent DO gravitate towards power. What’s the current nexus of power? Yup. Government.”

                      In other words, you can’t read for shit. I said that whenever people come together, someone will always have power. There is no example you can come up with of any society, EVER, where there were not people in control who had power over the rest. Name one. Go for it.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      “What are you talking about? Were you or were you not the government’s bitch? Yes, you were.”

                      No more than you were: After all, if you’re worth a damn, according to your own standards, you pay taxes… So you were paying ME. Who’s whose bitch again?

                      You joined the government. You worked for them. You worked for them in the most anti-freedom department they have, the military.”

                      Clearly you’ve forgotten about the IRS, the BATF, and half a dozen actually anti-freedom TLA agencies… But hey, I was 18 and stupid, and thought I could defend freedom like they promised. Unlike you, I’ve learned something since those days.

                      “But now you are for freedom and against government. That’s great and all, but that does not excuse your past. So you should be owning up to it instead of trying to make excuses like the bitch you are.”

                      I’ve ALWAYS been pro-freedom. Even the people I worked with thought I was radically libertarian, and asked how I could justify being in the Navy. Told them the same thing I’m telling you: “Support and defend the constitution” sounded like a good idea. Clearly it’s not sinking in and I’ll have to drive it home with a tack-hammer. I’VE LEARNED THINGS SINCE THEN, AND YOU HAVEN’T.

                      [me]“Yes, Godwin’s law is such a trump card…
                      For the other guy.”

                      “Like this quote of yours? “So when it gets bad enough that your choices are Hitler or Stalin…””

                      If you actually read what Godwin’s law was, you’d realize I’d have to be comparing an existing thing to the Nazis to fall afoul of it. Not a theoretical construct example. One more fail on your part…

                      [me]“What they didn’t at ALL tell me is that if I ever tried, I’d get transferred to Adak Alaska and promptly forgotten about. Which is a MARVELOUS way to get a Libertarian to realize that government words only mean things to other people, never to themselves, and that anarchism is the logical endgame to promoting simple honesty between people. But you hardly seem to know anything about that.”

                      “From that I gather you were mad that you got transferred to a dead end post in the middle of nowhere. Well, cry me a river. You were some nut job they didn’t want but couldn’t get rid of any other way.”

                      I didn’t get transferred. ONE MORE incidence of you showing complete failure to comprehend common english parlance. I spent 4 years in sunny Hawaii… Minus deployment times. You fail to gather so damn often, if you were a squirrel, you’d be dead by November.

                      [me]“I can’t vote here. I DO have a passport, but the story takes an awful long time to explain, and I don’t think I owe a complete fucking asshat like you a campfire tale like this one. Suffice it to say that just like the people of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico, I cannot vote, and likewise cannot be made to pay federal income tax. So given that, I ask again: What makes it “our” government?”

                      “Ok, so you got the piece of paper that you were talking about in your earlier post that made you a slave to government.”

                      Do clarify, tell me what you think you’re referencing?

                      “So I assumed you didn’t have one. But now you admit you do”

                      Wow, you even suck at admitting you were wrong, and tried to make it an admission on MY part? Bwahaha… Hilarious.

                      ” and that you are their slave, according to your words. Alright.”

                      I’m not, but thus far it’s because they haven’t chosen to come try and make an example out of my failure to comply. You can never “make” a sufficiently unwilling person a slave. Only a corpse.

                      “And no, I don’t give a fuck why you don’t have the right to vote any more.”

                      I believe you. You’re decidedly uncurious about how to free yourself.

                      “And you don’t have to pay federal income tax? And you’re STILL bitching about taxes? UNBELIEVABLE! Hahaha.”

                      If you think federal income tax is the only thing around, you’re even more deluded than the shit you’ve been telling us indicates, which, I must admit, is astonishing.

                      [me]“I have a passport”

                      “Great, then leave!”

                      I was born here, why the fuck should *I* leave all my family, friends, and business contacts behind because *you* want to make this a socialist hellhole? Those already exist! YOU leave!
                      Matter of fact, the theory goes that this is a free society. If I don’t like it, I don’t leave, I CHANGE IT. Where do YOU live? People’s democratically superfree republic of north korea? No? Well, clearly you should. It’s got everything you like, except electricity.

                      [me]“In other words, your worst-case scenario is that someone *might* form a government. Well, at least you’re conceding that they’re a worst-case scenario. and yes: People with ill intent DO gravitate towards power. What’s the current nexus of power? Yup. Government.”

                      “In other words, you can’t read for shit.”

                      You’re using my own observation? Well, at least you can copy/paste.

                      “I said that whenever people come together, someone will always have power. There is no example you can come up with of any society, EVER, where there were not people in control who had power over the rest. Name one. Go for it.”

                      Hello stupid: SOCIETY is voluntary. Did you mean “Government”? Of course you did. Want an example of such a society? The NRA, the Lion’s Club, the Freemasons, the Rotary club, the Bar association, the AMA, your local chamber of commerce…

                      Or did you NOT mean “The ability to get away with murder” as your euphemism? Did you ACTUALLY mean that nobody had ANY power over anyone? Like, nobody could touch each other, or trade/withhold trade from each other? No parents could tell their children when bedtime was? Good luck with THAT dream, because I’m not against those things, and if you try and claim I am, I’ll just call you out on that lie again, and again.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      “Who’s whose bitch again?”

                      You. You were the government’s bitch.

                      “I’ve ALWAYS been pro-freedom”

                      As long as the person supports anarchy, right?

                      “If you actually read what Godwin’s law was, you’d realize I’d have to be comparing an existing thing to the Nazis to fall afoul of it. Not a theoretical construct example. One more fail on your part…”

                      Not sure what exactly you mean by “existing thing”. Maybe try and be more precise with your words.

                      Here is Godwin’s law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″

                      I don’t see anything in there referencing an “existing thing”. Maybe you are confused? It just mentions a comparison. And you compared our choices of politicians to Stalin and Hitler.

                      “Do clarify, tell me what you think you’re referencing?”

                      Sure. I am referencing this: “and won’t let me leave unless I wish to beg them for paperwork, which would basically concede that they owned me.”

                      “Wow, you even suck at admitting you were wrong, and tried to make it an admission on MY part? Bwahaha… Hilarious.”

                      Uh, you just asked what I was referencing in the previous sentence. Did you find out in between writing those two sentences?

                      “I believe you. You’re decidedly uncurious about how to free yourself.”

                      Your version of freedom is losing the right to vote but still living in this country? Hahahaha. Yea. Freedom!

                      “If you think federal income tax is the only thing around”

                      Where did I say that? I didn’t.

                      ” If I don’t like it, I don’t leave, I CHANGE IT.”

                      Yea? What have you done to change it? Other than move to areas that have services that you don’t like and then bitch about those services.

                      “SOCIETY is voluntary. Did you mean “Government”? Of course you did. Want an example of such a society? The NRA, the Lion’s Club, the Freemasons, the Rotary club, the Bar association, the AMA, your local chamber of commerce…”

                      No, I meant society. As in, the first and most common definition: “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” So you can’t give any?

                      Your examples are pretty funny. You think there are no power structures in those groups? You think there are no rules?

                      “Or did you NOT mean “The ability to get away with murder” as your euphemism?”

                      No. I said that whenever there is power, there will be control. Whenever there is control, people will be made to do things that they might not like. Like having to pay taxes.

                      Simply put, government is just a group of people who govern. Whenever people come together, there is power, whenever there is power, people will govern. Simple as that.

                      “because I’m not against those things, and if you try and claim I am, I’ll just call you out on that lie again, and again.”

                      I know, you’re only against the things you don’t like in our society. It doesn’t actually fit into any mold or political philosophy. It’s just bitching.

                  • Fritz KneseNo Gravatar says:

                    Mark, Pyro and Bruce answered your objections well. No human system will ever be perfect. But anarchy provides the opportunity for the benefits of both freedom and voluntary collectlivism (cooperation). I submit that humans mostly prefer freedom to slavery. All government is coercive and thus enslaves us to one extent or another. If you do not like being told what to do then you should empathize with free men not collectivists who want to enforce their edlicts with government thugs with guns.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Sure. If you believe that, then that’s great. You should unite with others who agree with you and live together. But you don’t. You can’t help but stay on the grid in some form. You can’t help but stay in modern society in many ways. Yet your rhetoric goes directly against what is the central to that society.

                      If there were enough people who thought like you did, why don’t you form your own communes or cities? I really don’t get the position of living in a system that you profess to profoundly dislike.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      The reason being that there are many things that you don’t want to give up. Many services you couldn’t do without. But you are sadly, and I mean it respectfully, too dishonest to own up to this. You are fine benefiting in many ways while at the same time saying you don’t want those services.

                      Do you want to build your own roads? Do you want to build your own bridges? Do you want to regulate your own food? Your own medicine? Do you like being able to live to the age that we can due to modern medicine? Or would you rather the lifetime of a Roman? You have to choose, but all anarchists I know simply can’t do it.

                      They just talk.

                    • BabooshkaNo Gravatar says:

                      Alright. So after some thought, I think I’ve reduced your argument, as I see it, to it’s simplest possible forms.

                      You either:

                      a. You think what the government offers as a service is inefficient and want private companies to do provide service.

                      or

                      b. Tou don’t want any entity to have that power over you and you don’t require the service.

                      What categories do you guys fall under? And can you think of any other categories in the anti-government argument? Please share if so.

                    • pyrodiceNo Gravatar says:

                      Fritz, Babs doesn’t realize she’s making a very “conspiritard” argument. Don’t even bother answering. The idea that people can’t do things, only government can, implies that government isn’t made up of people. So it’s sorta like the “lizard people illuminati” conspiracy. Or the “we’re all run by and