Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform

[Kabluey]

You started another discussion of immigration at 326 , and I closed it.

326 didn't raise it, it was in response to your back peddling and claiming double standards after being fingered as an obvious racist. Apparently awful people say awful things to you about your 'cultural' beliefs.

Keep up.
But again, unintelligent debate attempts to reframe the issue from one of life and death to something else entirely.

 

[Kulindahr]

You seem to be of the opinion the suicide doesn't involve interaction with other people.

You're playing fast and loose with the definition of terms. In the way you talked before, suicide most certainly does not "involve interaction with other people" -- unless you think that by going to certain geographical locations you yourself become more likely to commit suicide, suicide is not relevant to interactions between people in terms of death by gun.

I happen to be a scientific author with three publications in peer-reviewed journals. I routinely "smooth" data when I present it, because it would be inappropriate NOT to do so.

I used to teach graduate students how to interpret scientific papers. The only "rejection of science" in this thread is yours and Benvolio's. And that is an apt description, since I am convinced that you understand this data, you simply choose to pretend otherwise.

Given your insistence on treating an entire array of data as though it represented only one of the subsets, I wouldn't trust any presentation of data from you -- your approach is anti-scientific. Accidents, suicides, shooting by law enforcement, self-defense, bar arguments, action by outsiders are all completely different in terms of the risk of being shot in some given location. Mushing them together and claiming it tells you the risk of being shot if you go to a given place is a flat lie.

Yes, I do understand the data -- that's how I can tell you're lying with it. You're making about the same error as people who say never go to hospitals because the death rate there is so much higher than elsewhere.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sudden realisation of where you're pushing that barrel?

A big part of the problem is people wanting to think about guns along party lines.
Instead of addressing issues that matter, they're opposed because the other guy said something.

Look at Kuli - gun supporter and liberal - something that apparently shouldn't exist in conservative-land. Conservatives trying to land people like him fail, liberals fear offending him in case he protest votes.
That's how single-issue campaigns arise.

You'd never be mistaken for a rocket scientist.

"Liberal" used to mean "gun supporter"; how the statists twisted it to oppose the most valuable of individual rights I'll never understand.

I'm not a modern liberal by any stretch of the imagination, since I regard government as a necessary tool while modern liberals see it as nigh-unto-deity.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli is a Libertarian not a "Liberal" (whatever that terms means these days anyway.)


I am a FLAMINGLY lefty-liberal QUEER boy from Texas and am in fact a gun owner. I don't want restrictions on fire arms, I want RESTRICTIONS ON PEOPLE!!!!



Guns don't kill people people WITH GUNS kill people! REGULATE!!!

But you always favor restrictions on the law-abiding, never on the criminals.

The Constitution prescribes how to deal with this -- you don't support that, ether.

 

[TX-Beau]

But you always favor restrictions on the law-abiding, never on the criminals.

The Constitution prescribes how to deal with this -- you don't support that, ether.

...but Kuli, they will all BE criminals when I change the laws...


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

Oh come on, not to interject my personal life here but my Grandpa just died yesterday, he was 95, born a dirt farmer, raised 9 kids, spent 75 years with the same woman - my perspective has officially kicked in, and at heart, we Texans ARE pragmatists, as colorful as we may look on the outside.

The Constitution is a legal instrument written by men, not only should it change, GASP perhaps it's HIGH time to have that discussion.

You won't railroad me into fits of paranoia about federal storm-troops quaking in terror of my shotgun either, because I'm going to let my innate Texan disrespect for authority say that the Constitution is not holy, and people who try to enshrine it in divine glory - are fucking hurting the rest of this country.

There it is, there I stand, I won't be changing.

 

[Kabluey]

...but Kuli, they will all BE criminals when I change the laws...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

Oh come on, not to interject my personal life here but my Grandpa just died yesterday, he was 95, born a dirt farmer, raised 9 kids, spent 75 years with the same woman - my perspective has officially kicked in, and at heart, we Texans ARE pragmatists, as colorful as we may look on the outside.

The Constitution is a legal instrument written by men, not only should it change, GASP perhaps it's HIGH time to have that discussion.

You won't railroad me into fits of paranoia about federal storm-troops quaking in terror of my shotgun either, because I'm going to let my innate Texan disrespect for authority say that the Constitution is not holy, and people who try to enshrine it in divine glory - are fucking hurting the rest of this country.

There it is, there I stand, I won't be changing.

Sorry to hear about your grandpa.
Bet he was every bit as stubborn

 

[Rolyo85]

"Liberal" used to mean "gun supporter"; how the statists twisted it to oppose the most valuable of individual rights I'll never understand.

I'm not a modern liberal by any stretch of the imagination, since I regard government as a necessary tool while modern liberals see it as nigh-unto-deity.

Seriously? The MOST valuable? More valuable than freedom of speech and the right not to be butchered for not believing in the Jebus?

 

[Kabluey]

Seriously? The MOST valuable? More valuable than freedom of speech and the right not to be butchered for not believing in the Jebus?

Some people have different priorities, it seems.

Somehow I doubt many US gun enthusiasts would leave the USA to take advantage of Pakistan's particularly lax gun laws. If freedom to bear arms is what they really wanted, there's always Pakistan.

Although that country isn't noted for its peace or prosperity, for whatever reason
..

 

[Kulindahr]

Seriously? The MOST valuable? More valuable than freedom of speech and the right not to be butchered for not believing in the Jebus?

Of course it's the most valuable: without it, all other rights become mere privileges.

BTW, the right to keep and bear arms IS the "right not to be butchered for not believing in the Jebus". It's an essential part of the right to resist tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some people have different priorities, it seems.

Somehow I doubt many US gun enthusiasts would leave the USA to take advantage of Pakistan's particularly lax gun laws. If freedom to bear arms is what they really wanted, there's always Pakistan.

Although that country isn't noted for its peace or prosperity, for whatever reason
..

When only one part of the population is allowed to be armed, the rest of the population has only as much functional liberty as the armed portion feel like allowing them. The only time that has not been so is when substantial outside force is present such that unarmed measures can overthrow tyranny.

 

[Rolyo85]

When only one part of the population is allowed to be armed, the rest of the population has only as much functional liberty as the armed portion feel like allowing them. The only time that has not been so is when substantial outside force is present such that unarmed measures can overthrow tyranny.

Interesting how every developed country in the world is fine with that notion.

 

[vidarr]

^^ Seeing the portion that is armed I don't know if I want the rest of the people to go buy guns.

Because I take my life into my own hands every time I step into Walmart, or the dry cleaners, or national parks....

 

[Kabluey]

When only one part of the population is allowed to be armed, the rest of the population has only as much functional liberty as the armed portion feel like allowing them. The only time that has not been so is when substantial outside force is present such that unarmed measures can overthrow tyranny.

Why's the USA not consistently at the top of rights indices?
Why's Pakistan down the bottom?

Your number one priority is to have the freedom to shoot. Personally if I lived near you, I'd want you to not have that right, especially based on your comments here.

Most developed countries offer freedom from the tyranny of paranoid and delusional gun holders.