Beretta to build new firearms plant in Tenn

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
look...I'm all for bashing on Daverino. I personally think it should be an olympic event. But you have to use a better argument than what you currently are.

I say if he wants guns banned, that's fine. He can move to a nice communist country where guns are banned. I hear Hitler's Germany was pretty nice.

Hey, it's hard to argue with a guy that knows Hitler's Germany was a communist country.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
See, there's your agenda again.

Crime is caused mostly by lack of education and opportunity. In some cases, sheer greed or lust for power too. But for the most part what we think of as 'crime' is socio-economically generated. Guns don't cause crime, although easy access to guns could be proposed as facilitating. Truth is, though, that's never been really shown. While violent crime in America is more violent than elsewhere because of access to guns, America is no more or less crime-ridden than any economically comparable country.

Gun control advocates (or anti-gun nutters, call them what you will) such as myself are mostly concerned with guns being legally owned by people not responsible, mature, sane or intelligent enough to own them. I am also concerned about a culture that looks up to, instead of down upon, people willing to use deadly force to resolve their issues. I do not believe that an armed society is more polite than an unarmed one. I also believe that the more heavily armed we become the more likely it is for tragedies. Finally I believe that using threats to the 2nd Amendment as a pretense to more heavily arm our citizens is a ruse and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

NOW, back to your point. You still cannot have it both ways. Your premise is that by disarming the entire state of California that it would become a 'cesspool' of crime and violence. Now ignoring how absurd that scenario is, your premise could only be true if crime and violence increase when only criminals have access to guns. However, California would still have its good public school system and excellent colleges. It would still have a top notch medical system with a heavily insured population and a first-world infrastructure. It would still be the headquarters for Google, Apple and Facebook. The people in California would still have a median income of over $60,000 per year, well above the national average. There is no motivation for your hypothetical criminal warlords (I'm still unclear who they would be. . . The Gulf Cartel? The Yakuza? Illuminati?) to invade California and turn it into your hypothetical cesspool. There are places where the people are poorer and less educated where crime can flourish. In other words, crime would still be 'hard' in California relative to say Mexico. It's the same reason why crime has not flown from Newark to Manhattan or Neuvo Laredo to Laredo. And yes, I know there's lots of crime in Laredo, but it's not comparable to what occurs 2 minutes down I-35.

You've really given no evidence that your California cesspool fantasy is anything more than an absurdity. And if your goal is really to, "start to have a serious debate on what are the problems and how to solve them." then sperging out with a nonsensical masturbatory fiction of California in anarchy is really a bad way to encourage it.

Oooooooo... Agenda. Big words. If you call wanting to finally get some idiots to see reason and logic an "agenda" then fine use that moniker.

It's not an agenda when I see over and over again the same stupid illogical arguments for gun control, or worse ban laws being proposed by anti-gun people that don't have two brain cells in their heads they could rub together for a spark.

You have watched this video I hope?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxKPoh2h26k

It is a bit of a compilation of idiot legislators that don't have a fucking clue about the subject they are trying to write laws for. What's worse is many anti gun nut jobs look at horrible whack job sites like mother jones, that purposefully has LIED on many of their statistics to paint the picture they want. When dealing with idiots that won't listen to reason, logic, or practical evidence, an extreme situation may actually cause them to see the truth of the matter. If it doesn't nothing will. An extreme situation would be all gun manufacturers and ammo suppliers pulling out of California completely. I do believe an incident like that would cause organized crime to move in and take over turning the entire state into one giant shithole if neighboring states and the federal government let them stew in their own juices for a bit. I used Mexico as an example of this happening with that previous NPR news link, but such shit can be seen in a microcosm of many border towns along the Mexican border from California to Texas. Of which those towns all have poverty problems so... yah it's hard right now using statistics to separate if the cause of organized crime rates are related to the lax law enforcement in those areas or the high poverty rates or both.

The whole point is of me wanting the gun market to pull out of a state like California is because I seriously believe the state as a whole, even non poverty places, would turn into a cesspool of crime. Who the organized crime would be I have no clue, nor do I care who does it, only that I know what result would be. And yes, criminals always have access to guns in this world. You thinking that a non-legal market in California by which guns can be obtained would stop criminals from obtaining those guns is completely naive. As that is what currently happens in Mexico, many hell hole South American countries, and many hell hole African countries. How they get is doesn't matter, but as it is now it would not be through legal means. Which is why if the legal market pulls out of California, it would clearly demonstrate how the criminals get their guns through other methods.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Lots of words

Help me out here. Venix tried to help you by saying you're not arguing about gun control per se, but supply and demand of guns. And then you're all like, "Yeah yeah, Venix! That's exactly what I mean. But let me launch into a series of anti-gun control diatribes that completely undermine that position!"

In that case we're back to the Straw Man again. The only reason you want California to be stripped of guns in your experiment is so you believe it will show how ULTIMATE gun control will lead to anarchy. You then surmise that since ULTIMATE gun control will lead to anarchy that all forms of gun control is bad and anyone advocating gun control simply wants the criminals to win. That's a steaming pile of a bullshit argument.

To summarize:
1. You propose a social experiment that is absurd, impossible and nobody has ever asked for
2. You propose the conclusions of your experiment despite no supporting evidence it would turn out as you want.
3. You use the baseless conclusions of your absurd an un-tested experiment as an argument against gun control.

That's par for the course on the internet, I suppose. But it still doesn't make it any less bullshit.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Yes, let's allow a firearms plant to be built in a state with a history of secessionist (among other) violence... we need to drop the political correctness bullshit. No guns in the South, period. Let's give some meaning to "well regulated."
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
I've watched way too much Military Channel already.

Now that I go back and reread my post, I see what you were thinking I meant. It was two separate thoughts. 1) you should go to a nice communist nation where guns are banned and 2)Hitler's Germany was nice (since he banned guns). I didn't mean to connect the two.

What exactly does the military channel teach about the '38 weapons act?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Help me out here. Venix tried to help you by saying you're not arguing about gun control per se, but supply and demand of guns. And then you're all like, "Yeah yeah, Venix! That's exactly what I mean. But let me launch into a series of anti-gun control diatribes that completely undermine that position!"

In that case we're back to the Straw Man again. The only reason you want California to be stripped of guns in your experiment is so you believe it will show how ULTIMATE gun control will lead to anarchy. You then surmise that since ULTIMATE gun control will lead to anarchy that all forms of gun control is bad and anyone advocating gun control simply wants the criminals to win. That's a steaming pile of a bullshit argument.

To summarize:
1. You propose a social experiment that is absurd, impossible and nobody has ever asked for
2. You propose the conclusions of your experiment despite no supporting evidence it would turn out as you want.
3. You use the baseless conclusions of your absurd an un-tested experiment as an argument against gun control.

That's par for the course on the internet, I suppose. But it still doesn't make it any less bullshit.

1) Absurd maybe, but not impossible. As some manufacturers are already pulling out of state markets that are making absurd gun control laws. Barret, Ruger, and S&W are examples. There are also some online retailers now that also refuse to do business with those states. If they go, others can follow. Who cares if it was asked for or not? If the market is already doing it to a degree, it can be expanded further and might just do so.

2) That's what a fucking hypothesis is you idiot. Read up on the scientific method. And there IS evidence for it, but it is weaker correlation evidence as I have mentioned with Mexico. That's why separating the vectors there would strength the evidence. Wow, are you that dense on how science works?

3) Hahaha, no. Being able to visualize the results of a hypothetical scenario using deductive reasoning isn't baseless.

Again, the point of the proposal I made, as it seems part of the industry already agrees with me, is that the idiots that make stupid gun control laws don't understand logic at all. The strongest connection between violent crimes is based around poverty, opportunity, and segregation in a diverse environment. That gun availability, legal or otherwise, makes little impact EXCEPT at possibly the extremes of either zero gun ownership or complete gun ownership of all law abiding citizens. Of which there is certain some evidence for that. Which means all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass. They do nothing except waste tax payer money and give a feel good fuzzy to people that can't understand logic.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
1) Absurd maybe, but not impossible. As some manufacturers are already pulling out of state markets that are making absurd gun control laws. Barret, Ruger, and S&W are examples. There are also some online retailers now that also refuse to do business with those states. If they go, others can follow. Who cares if it was asked for or not? If the market is already doing it to a degree, it can be expanded further and might just do so.

2) That's what a fucking hypothesis is you idiot. Read up on the scientific method. And there IS evidence for it, but it is weaker correlation evidence as I have mentioned with Mexico. That's why separating the vectors there would strength the evidence. Wow, are you that dense on how science works?

3) Hahaha, no. Being able to visualize the results of a hypothetical scenario using deductive reasoning isn't baseless.

Again, the point of the proposal I made, as it seems part of the industry already agrees with me, is that the idiots that make stupid gun control laws don't understand logic at all. The strongest connection between violent crimes is based around poverty, opportunity, and segregation in a diverse environment. That gun availability, legal or otherwise, makes little impact EXCEPT at possibly the extremes of either zero gun ownership or complete gun ownership of all law abiding citizens. Of which there is certain some evidence for that. Which means all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass. They do nothing except waste tax payer money and give a feel good fuzzy to people that can't understand logic.

Wow, thank you for confirming everything I wrote. Sorry Venix, Humble says it's not about supply and demand. It's all about gun control and how 'fucking retarded' it is.

Oh, and as a refresher, the scientific process is:
1. Make observations (you haven't)
2. Form a hypothesis based on observations (haven't made any observations, so you don't have a valid hypothesis)
3. Create predictions (Oh boy, have you made LOTS of predictions, despite skipping the first two steps)
4. Conduct an experiment (You proposed one that, in your own words, is absurd)
5. Make a conclusion (Which, from you is "all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass". You got here despite fucking up the previous four steps.)

Let me give you an example:
1. Observation: Many areas with differing crime rates that are in proximity to each other and often have different gun control laws
2. Hypothesis: Crime and violence will increase over time in areas with strict gun control if they are proximal to areas without strict gun control and proximal to areas of crime
3. Null Hypothesis: Crime and violence in an area with strict gun control will be independent of the crime rates and gun control laws of nearby areas
4. Data:
Buffalo, New York - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Niagara Falls, Ontario - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Laredo, Texas - Static crime, poor gun control
Nuevo Larero, Mexico - Unbelievable crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Germany - Static crime, strict gun control
Czech Republic - Static crime, poor gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
New York City - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Newark, NJ - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
San Francisco, CA - Decreasing crime, limited gun control
Oakland, CA - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
5. Conclusion: Based on the limited data above, all of it supports the null hypothesis that gun control and changing crime rates are independent even when two areas have different crime rates and are proximal. Therefore, the hypothesis is likely false.

So there's your homework assignment Humble. Present some observations that support your hypothesis. That's the difference between a hypothesis and a 'wild ass guess.'
 
Last edited:

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Yes, let's allow a firearms plant to be built in a state with a history of secessionist (among other) violence... we need to drop the political correctness bullshit. No guns in the South, period. Let's give some meaning to "well regulated."

So give us your opinion on Germany, Japan, & Mexico. Should we keep them disarmed indefinitely too, due to their "violent tendencies" towards the USA? :confused:
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Wow, thank you for confirming everything I wrote. Sorry Venix, Humble says it's not about supply and demand. It's all about gun control and how 'fucking retarded' it is.

Oh, and as a refresher, the scientific process is:
1. Make observations (you haven't)
2. Form a hypothesis based on observations (haven't made any observations, so you don't have a valid hypothesis)
3. Create predictions (Oh boy, have you made LOTS of predictions, despite skipping the first two steps)
4. Conduct an experiment (You proposed one that, in your own words, is absurd)
5. Make a conclusion (Which, from you is "all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass". You got here despite fucking up the previous four steps.)

Let me give you an example:
1. Observation: Many areas with differing crime rates that are in proximity to each other and often have different gun control laws
2. Hypothesis: Crime and violence will increase over time in areas with strict gun control if they are proximal to areas without strict gun control and proximal to areas of crime
3. Null Hypothesis: Crime and violence in an area with strict gun control will be independent of the crime rates and gun control laws of nearby areas
4. Data:
Buffalo, New York - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Niagara Falls, Ontario - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Laredo, Texas - Static crime, poor gun control
Nuevo Larero, Mexico - Unbelievable crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Germany - Static crime, strict gun control
Czech Republic - Static crime, poor gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
New York City - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Newark, NJ - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
San Francisco, CA - Decreasing crime, limited gun control
Oakland, CA - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
5. Conclusion: Based on the limited data above, all of it supports the null hypothesis that gun control and changing crime rates are independent even when two areas have different crime rates and are proximal. Therefore, the hypothesis is likely false.

So there's your homework assignment Humble. Present some observations that support your hypothesis. That's the difference between a hypothesis and a 'wild ass guess.'

Wow, you are fucking dense. The whole thing is about stupid gun control laws from the get go you idiot. That is what I expressly stated in the original post I made in this thread you numbnuts. What the fuck are you arguing about? The point I have stated in multiple times here is that I would love to see that experiment carried out so that anti-gun nutters can no longer claim that guns = crime in anyway shape or form. Most people understand they don't, but many do not. You fucking watch that video I previously posted? You have a fucking major thinking that for every legally owned and donate gun to their police that removing the gun from private citizen hands has saved THOUSANDS of lives. No fucking joke. Watch the damn video. This is what anti gun nutters actually say and think! They refuse to listen to logic and reason. To borrow an adage, it would take a swift kick in the ass to bring them around. Which means an extreme situation in their face that they can't ignore.

As for your list of scientific method steps.

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

1) Observations (optional). No observation or initial evidence gathering is required for step 2 although it certainly helps.
2) Formulate a question to be answered. This doesn't have to be testable. But without a question you can't seek an answer.
3) Brainstorm: seek a hypothesis can be tested.
4) Create a testable hypothesis based upon the question of step 2. Since step 1 is optional, it does not need to depend or conform to step 1.
5) Present a prediction about the hypothesis and test results.
6) Devise tests for the hypothesis that can be replicated.
7) Execute tests and record data.
8) Analyze data in conjunction with the hypothesis.
9) Revise hypothesis upon tests if needed based upon results.
10) Present findings to others to review. They can then devise tests you may have missed to either validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
11) If no test that can be thought of can disprove the hypothesis, it can be eventually deemed a scientific working theory.

I already presented everything needed thus far in this thread. It's the weekend and I don't want to do more of your fucking homework in figuring out what I am trying to present with my arguments in this thread. Obviously, your misunderstanding of the scientific method is bad enough to have not gleaned my purpose thus far.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
So give us your opinion on Germany, Japan, & Mexico. Should we keep them disarmed indefinitely too, due to their "violent tendencies" towards the USA? :confused:

They didn't secede from the USA, even though sometimes I do think Germany shouldn't be allowed to have any sort of military capability.
 

Daverino

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2007
2,004
1
0
Lots of profanity but completely avoiding the question

Well until you feel capable of adding something intelligent to the conversation maybe should refrain from posting?

Or are you just trying to join the 'Content Free Poaster Club' with Nehalem and Incorruptible?
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Wow, thank you for confirming everything I wrote. Sorry Venix, Humble says it's not about supply and demand. It's all about gun control and how 'fucking retarded' it is.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of his argument. I haven't followed this thread very closely, but far as I can tell his point is just the following:

  1. Anti-gun politicians and groups dislike guns and insist that they increase crime
  2. They can't ban guns, so they instead pass ridiculous, expensive, and completely ineffective legislation like "assault weapon" bans
  3. If gun manufacturers cut off supply to states with these silly laws, crime would increase
  4. Politicians and anti-gun groups would look foolish as their gun-free utopia becomes a crime-ridden hellhole

That said, I don't think most anti-gun people believe that guns increase crime; they believe that private ownership of guns increases crime. Nobody's opinion would change if this situation occurred because they would view disarming the police as the problem.

Gun control advocates (or anti-gun nutters, call them what you will) such as myself are mostly concerned with guns being legally owned by people not responsible, mature, sane or intelligent enough to own them.

That's a reasonable position, but I question whether it's what you actually believe. Would you oppose a new gun store or indoor range opening in your city? Would you feel uncomfortable if a friend or neighbor carried a firearm in your presence? Do you support laws that make someone a felon because he loaded one too many cartridges in his magazine? Have you ever uttered the phrase, "No one needs [X]!"

Most gun control advocates are afraid of guns and view them as bad. And that makes perfect sense, since almost every proposed gun control law is about preventing everyone from owning certain guns or accessories. If you truly only support laws that restrict people "not responsible, mature, sane or intelligent enough to own [guns]," you're not a gun control advocate.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
They didn't secede from the USA, even though sometimes I do think Germany shouldn't be allowed to have any sort of military capability.

Neither should the USA, if you ask the Native Americans. :colbert:

You might want to read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution sometime.