brycejones
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2005
- 26,157
- 24,093
- 136
Every time you see a lefty talking about seizing homes and property for a minor crime it's time to start worrying.
LOL given the GOP's law and order confiscation spree going back to the 80s.
Every time you see a lefty talking about seizing homes and property for a minor crime it's time to start worrying.
It's also flat out lies, made possible by manipulating data, but you knew that.Nope, they provide net negative value, at least insofar as protection is concerned. The research is very clear on this.
How did you not know this? I mean this is basic, basic stuff.
That also made me worry, still does.LOL given the GOP's law and order confiscation spree going back to the 80s.
It's also flat out lies, made possible by manipulating data, but you knew that.
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.Ah yes, as always information that tells you things you don't want to hear must be lies. It's funny how often you accuse other people of lying considering we both know you know better and are lying right now.
Tsk, tsk.
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.
No fskihole, you screwed up when you stated "I find no value in gun ownership for the average person" when there is great value when firearms are used to stop rapes, murders and other crimes and have previously been listed. While you may disagree how often it happens, even you can't honestly say it doesn't happen at all or there is "no value". Tsk tsk.
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.Logic fail. If one believes there is more harm than good, then it is accurate to say "there is no value" so long as you understand that "no value" applies to society as a whole, not to specific individuals.
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.
Nope, then you'd say "there is little value" or some such. No value = no value. Nice try though.
Wrong. If there is more harm than good, there is no net value. In fact, the net value is negative, i.e. less than zero.
Let's look at it in reverse. If he meant to say that literally no individual has ever benefitted from gun ownership, then that's the way he would have said it.
Every time you see a lefty talking about seizing homes and property for a minor crime it's time to start worrying.
Speaking of zero, the odds that be doesn’t know his argument is stupid are approximately zero. Having an honest discussion about this was never his intent and I think we all know this. It’s why him calling other people liars is so amusing.
With miniaturization and cellular and genetic technology guns could be made that record and transmit where they are and when they have been fired and keyed to be used only by the owner.. Guns without such technology could be banned and replaced with this type. Gun ownership could thus be preserved but all older kinds of guns banned. Generations of sever penalties for having one of the older kind would eventually reduce their presence in the population.
First let me make this clear I personally think forfeitures laws are a gross overreach of power.
But it's the law in most states. Read up on it. Its scary what they can do even for minor crimes. Most of the american public is pretty much against them, but $$ talks. Strange the lefties are more opposed to it then the party of personal freedom.
The interesting thing, to me, is that I believe _he_ doesn't know that. He thinks he's looking to have an honest discussion. He's apparently unable to see what he is doing or to notice the massive logic holes in his arguments.
I wonder how far that situation is the norm in politics (and to what extent it is evenly-distributed across all political allegiances)?
I'm sure Doctors say "there's NO value in exercising" because some people get injured while exercising also. Wait, no they don't, it's still a benefit.Wrong. If there is more harm than good, there is no net value. In fact, the net value is negative, i.e. less than zero.
Let's look at it in reverse. If he meant to say that literally no individual has ever benefitted from gun ownership, then that's the way he would have said it.
I'm sure Doctors say "there's NO value in exercising" because some people get injured while exercising also. Wait, no they don't, it's still a benefit.
You are missing my point, which is that measuring the effects of terrorist attacks (and I do consider these mass murders terrorist attacks!) can't be assessed just in terms of integers (i.e. the number of "lives lost"). That's linear thinking and belies a pitiful lack of imagination. These atrocities affect people, they spread fear, anxiety, create negativity. Everyone understands this. Some deny it. Are you one of them?
And just because the great majority of owners of assault weapons have never killed anyone doesn't justify their having them. They entice unstable people to commit heinous crimes. They are not essential to the well being and happiness of owners. On balance, they should not be out there. Take your "horseshit" invective and shove it up your horse ass, BTW. I do not come here to hurl insults.
Except that's not what he said.You're kidding me, right? Do you understand the concept of net benefit to society? So in your example of exercise, some people may have bad outcomes from exercise, while others have good outcomes from exercise. If there are more good outcomes than bad, it's a net positive. If there are more bad outcomes than good, it's a net negative. I think most people would agree that exercise benefits more people than it hurts. In the case of guns, however, he was saying there was no net benefit to gun ownership because in his opinion there are more bad outcomes than good.
I don't think it can be made any clearer than this.
Except that's not what he said.
And now deliberately obtuse over minutiae.
First let me make this clear I personally think forfeitures laws are a gross overreach of power.
But it's the law in most states. Read up on it. Its scary what they can do even for minor crimes. Most of the american public is pretty much against them, but $$ talks. Strange the lefties are more opposed to it then the party of personal freedom.