• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the news media biased, or just stupid on firearms?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
QuantumPion said:
lol liberals. When you can't win the argument, revert to cry baby mode.
Click to expand...

Funny...you call me a liberal.
In Denmark I'm to the right in the polictical spectrum...that is why I find it so funny, when nuggets try and label Obama as a "socialist"...only proves they havn't got a clue what the word means! 😉
 
QuantumPion said:
What? I never claimed I was in the military. I have worked at military bases however.

Furthermore, I have never made any statement requiring an appeal to authority to back it up. Which is all you and Lonjberg have done: "You weren't/I was in the military, therefore your position is invalid".
Click to expand...

So? Appeals to authority are not logical fallacies when the people have actual expertise in the area.

So can I assume you regret calling me a liar and wish to take it back? If not, on what basis are you calling me a liar?
 
Lonbjerg said:
Funny...you call me a liberal.
In Denmark I'm to the right in the polictical spectrum...that is why I find it so funny, when nuggets try and label Obama as a "socialist"...only proves they havn't got a clue what the word means! 😉
Click to expand...

Even though Democrats here would be considered conservatives in the rest of the world, the American right is so far off the deep end that they consider your conservatives to basically be communists.
 
Lonbjerg said:
I was recon:
army2z.jpg


Red circle in me.

Nice own goal, boy! 😀
Click to expand...

Oh cool, are we posting fun things we did in the military as some how proof that we are right?


 
Last edited:
eskimospy said:
So? Appeals to authority are not logical fallacies when the people have actual expertise in the area.
Click to expand...

Um...yes they are. That is the whole point of a logical fallacy. You are not claiming you are correct because you have facts to back you up. You are claiming you are correct because the mere claim that you were in the military, makes your argument correct. That is the precise definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.[/quote]

eskimospy said:
So can I assume you regret calling me a liar and wish to take it back? If not, on what basis are you calling me a liar?
Click to expand...

I'm still calling you a liar because you are so laughably 100% wrong there is no way you could have any military experience and you are now merely trying to deflect.
 
Lonbjerg said:
Funny...you call me a liberal.
In Denmark I'm to the right in the polictical spectrum...that is why I find it so funny, when nuggets try and label Obama as a "socialist"...only proves they havn't got a clue what the word means! 😉
Click to expand...

You live in a country that is 90% of the same descent, with a population of only 5.5 million people. The county I was born in has more people with more racial and cultural diversity then your little flyspeck of a Kingdom.
 
QuantumPion said:
Um...yes they are. That is the whole point of a logical fallacy. You are not claiming you are correct because you have facts to back you up. You are claiming you are correct because the mere claim that you were in the military, makes your argument correct. That is the precise definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...



I'm still calling you a liar because you are so laughably 100% wrong there is no way you could have any military experience and you are now merely trying to deflect.[/QUOTE]


You still call me a liar?

QuantumPion said:
What were you, a cook? Janitor? File clerk? Sexual harassment counselor? :biggrin:

I love all the posers in this thread. "I was in the army therefore my opinion that guns are bad is valid". Lol.

I'm calling Lonbjergh a liar as well. I guarantee the closest thing he has to military experience is call of duty.
Click to expand...

Do you?!
 
I think mostly they're just ignorant. This is an entirely WAG, but I'd say that most media types didn't grow up shooting guns/hunting/playing shooter videogames. They know about guns from watching the news (which likes to sensationalize to get ratings) and movies. So they hear "semi-automatic" and think of 100 round/minute machine guns. They think nobody could ever use a couple thousand rounds of ammo for anything other than murderous rampages or militia showdowns with the government. They see black rifles and assume they are somehow more "deadly" than the wooden stocked guns, because they saw Michael Landon using a wood stock in Little House and he wasn't so bad.

Ultimately, they're like your typical computer user that calls into a help desk (which I'd guess is a good analogy to use on this forum). They know just enough about guns to be dangerous. They throw around ridiculously wrong information that gets consumed by the masses who don't know any better themselves.
 
joshsquall said:
I think mostly they're just ignorant. This is an entirely WAG, but I'd say that most media types didn't grow up shooting guns/hunting/playing shooter videogames. They know about guns from watching the news (which likes to sensationalize to get ratings) and movies. So they hear "semi-automatic" and think of 100 round/minute machine guns. They think nobody could ever use a couple thousand rounds of ammo for anything other than murderous rampages or militia showdowns with the government. They see black rifles and assume they are somehow more "deadly" than the wooden stocked guns, because they saw Michael Landon using a wood stock in Little House and he wasn't so bad.

Ultimately, they're like your typical computer user that calls into a help desk (which I'd guess is a good analogy to use on this forum). They know just enough about guns to be dangerous. They throw around ridiculously wrong information that gets consumed by the masses who don't know any better themselves.
Click to expand...
WTF man? What's with the on topic post? 😕
 
Lonbjerg said:
You still call me a liar?
Click to expand...

Yes? It's pretty blatantly obvious at this point. Soldiers whom serve in armed forces don't go around internet forums derisively calling people "boy" like a whining 15 year old troll.

Lonbjerg said:
Do you?!
Click to expand...

Do I have military experience? No, I have never claimed to, and I've never made a fallacious appeal to authority argument requiring me to have to support my argument.
 
What the hell does being in the military have to do with self defense?

An armed "bad guy" with a gun in a theater killed innocent people. Some were in the military, most were not. None were carrying fire arms.

And it isn't as if the military makes you impervious to being scared during gun fire. It's basically the gist of fight or flight. In a situation where you are facing someone who is armed and you are not, flight is definitely your best option. In a situation where you are facing someone who is armed as are you, flight MAY not be your best option.

It's that simple. If you can fire back because your means to leave the situation are severely limited (IE - you're stuck in the front row and the exit has 100s of people lined up trying to push their way out), then you have given yourself another option to do something. Also, should you fire back, it is possible you could disable or slow down the person causing harm to others, thereby benefiting those around you.

In situations like what happened, if a law abiding conceal carry person were stuck with limited options for exit, his best option, IMO, would be to fight back. His chances improve immensely if he is also carrying a fire arm, as his attack on the attacker would not be as limited by distance. If all he had was a baseball bat, he'd have to get within striking distance to have any chance at stopping him, and the odds of that are not likely.

So what is the argument here? That gun control would have stopped what happened? Pssh, soda bottle, gasoline, lighter. All legal items. All impossible to eliminate from the hands of civilians. Possibly worse outcome than 12 people being killed. We can't take cars off the road because people stop paying attention to their driving and run someone over. We can't end the sport of baseball because someone killed someone else by bashing them in with a baseball bat. The only thing they can do is punish the wrong doers when they are caught. They provide rehabilitation for people with mental problems. They can provide better support and guidance for youth that are living in bad neighborhoods.

All taking guns away is going to do is make them find another means to do harm. There are plenty out there, I can assure you.
 
QuantumPion said:
Yes? It's pretty blatantly obvious at this point. Soldiers whom serve in armed forces don't go around internet forums derisively calling people "boy" like a whining 15 year old troll.
Click to expand...

You are wrong...liar.



Do I have military experience? No, I have never claimed to, and I've never made a fallacious appeal to authority argument requiring me to have to support my argument.
Click to expand...

So another lying...boy! ^^
 
QuantumPion said:
Um...yes they are. That is the whole point of a logical fallacy. You are not claiming you are correct because you have facts to back you up. You are claiming you are correct because the mere claim that you were in the military, makes your argument correct. That is the precise definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

You need to go learn more about the appeal to authority. You realize we use it in courtrooms all the time in the form of expert testimony, right? Are you saying a significant part of our legal system is based on a logical fallacy? People who are experts in a field giving their interpretation of events to which their expertise is simply not a fallacy. I'm sorry if you didn't know that, but that's what I'm here for, to educate!

I'm still calling you a liar because you are so laughably 100% wrong there is no way you could have any military experience and you are now merely trying to deflect.
Click to expand...

Oh okay, so you're just making shit up as usual then. If you don't have the balls to admit you were wrong that's your business, not mine. It's not like you could look any worse on here than you already do.
 
Lonbjerg said:
But very few as effective.
Click to expand...

You don't think fire is effective?

Hell, people can make bombs with stuff they buy at a hardware store. The can find what they need to know about doing it on the Internet, just as this guy bought some of his stuff on the Internet.

A firearm may be easier to operate and more effective, but it isn't necessarily about effectiveness. It's about being lethal. Fortunately for the movie goers, this guy didn't attack them with bombs. I'd figure that to be far more lethal than single shots from a fire arm. And again, he could create a bomb with parts that are impossible to regulate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top