The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 4221 - 4240 of total 5936 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:35pm PT
Exposing racists for the fools and cowards they are will, though.

It seems to me that accusing somebody of being a racist in this day and age is very serious, even civilly actionable. I've read through this thread pretty carefully, and I would like to know what Ron has written that justifies you calling him a racist. Have you read the "racist" metrics on the FBI site you so highly tout? How do you justify calling Ron a racist, fool, and coward?

I had no intention of further participating in this "discussion," because there is almost nothing resembling an actual discussion of facts and various valid ways of interpreting them. It's turned into bullying, name-calling, and verbal drive-by-shootings. But I think your comments about Ron being a racist go far beyond the pale, even for the lowest of the Taco threads (which this has turned into, thanks in no small part to your contributions).

I think your "racist" accusations are worthy of site review/moderation, and, again, might well be actionable. What evidence of Ron's supposed racism do you have?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:39pm PT
New Town. 12/14
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
It's a big world with a lot of different perspectives

There's a HUGE difference between "perspectives" and refusing to the understand the actual information being presented. Ron is guilty of the latter. In my book, pretending to be involved in a discussion and discarding the available information because it doesn't fit your "perspective" is deserving of ridicule and is at least as rood as calling someone names. When someone gets their ass handed to them as much as Ron has and still comes back with the tired old bullsh#t, you have to acknowledge the fact he is bringing it on himself. He dishes it out on occasion, he keeps coming back, and he refuses to a knowledge when his "perspective" is in direct conflict with THE FACTS. Yes, Ron deserves the verbal abuse he gets here... really anyone who logs on deserves the verbal abuse they get here... including hedge, so let it rip.






Hillrat, that's a kind offer, thanks. I'm out of town until May, but we should do it this summer. I've actually never had the opportunity to eat heart. Haven't had liver for a long time either. Maybe boil up some crawdads too.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:46pm PT
Thanks for the further info, Coz. Oh, and by the way, I did follow your sobriety thread with interest. Congrats, and more power to you!
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:48pm PT
what Ron has written that justifies you calling him a racist.

Anyone straying from the "progressive" party line is a "racist"

No justification required from their perspective.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:55pm PT

There's a HUGE difference between "perspectives" and refusing to the understand the actual information being presented. Ron is guilty of the latter.

Is it a hanging offense?

Or a tissue issue?

Will you get over it?

I know, I know, you're just bored and poking the bear.

The other guy? I'm a little concerned.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 7, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
FYI, you are labeled a racist and maybe fired from some jobs for saying "they'll probably have to hire a Mexican to meet those stupid diversity requirements." Which justifies hedge's characterization of Ron as a racist, at least a little.


Is it a hanging offense?

No, but it is certainly deserving of the abuse dished out thus far.

Will you get over it?

Never. I will carry it to my grave.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:00pm PT

Never. I will carry it to my grave.

Ha!

I expect the issue to make an appearance in the epitaph after you're beaten to death with your own arms by thugs of a hard to pin-point ethnicity you've vaguely offended.



No, but it is certainly deserving of the abuse dished out thus far.

I would have to say that is not a standard shared by all.

We could toss around the label "bullies" just as easy as the old "racist" card. I just think the mutually argued point is getting into a little bit strange, non-productive, and intense territory lately.

Again, I give Bullfrog all due troll credit. Bravo, sir!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
There's a HUGE difference between "perspectives" and refusing to the understand the actual information being presented. Ron is guilty of the latter.

I could say the same thing about you and Joe.

Joe repeatedly cites "12000 murders," and I show that that figure is simply not the case, not even on the FBI site he cites to support that claim.

You and Joe then spend a dozen posts on sarcasm about how accidents, suicides, and murders are really not really different.

Okay, so I post careful research noting that if "the death toll" is all that matters (confused as I am by your and Joe'e EMPHASIS on murder, murder, murder), then there ARE many other easily preventable activities that do FAR more damage to this society and cause FAR more death, particularly among young people, than guns do.

You and Joe then devolve into yet more mirth about how "pulling a cigarette" doesn't "feel" as much of a threat to you as pulling a gun. Wait, I thought we were talking about data rather than viscera here; that's what you and Joe keep claiming, anyway.

I clarify that, yes, the sense of "proximate threat" is not there with cigarettes, but that as a statistical FACT they do far more damage to and cause far more death in our society than all gun deaths combined (again, particularly to our young people and even infants, who cannot "just walk away").

I could go on and on. In every case that I have responded to a stated perspective with hard facts and careful interpretation, you and Joe have initiated a dog-pile response of pure sarcasm and straw-man comparisons.

Look, if you want to emphasize gun-MURDER, then the actual statistics do NOT support your claims of 12,000 MURDERS per year; it's more like 1/3 of that, AND that number is declining year-by-year, even as gun sales increase. Those are FACTS derived from the very same site you most highly tout, coupled with CDC data that is even more reliable than that of the FBI because it is cooked rather than raw data.

If you want to emphasize DEATH by gun, then you can at least get to around 11,000, but in that event, you'll have more work to do to distinguish "all that death" from MANY other causes that are even more easily preventable than are gun deaths, AND you'll have to demonstrate much more carefully than you have that just making various gun-sales laws are going to have the effect you desire.

As I said, I honestly have no ax to grind. I have no problem whatsoever with the sorts of laws you suggest. I just don't think you or anybody else has produced the slightest systematic evidence to indicate that such laws are going to have the desired effect.

My point is that YOU and JOE have been the most vociferous gang-bangers on this thread, and you have BOTH been willfully and sarcastically dismissive of any attempts to show you that your particular "take" on the data and how to interpret it is NOT the only reasonable or valid "take" on it.

So, don't single Ron out for special condemnation. The data is itself difficult, and interpreting it is even more difficult. And after all that, finding solutions that can be expected to work HERE, in the USA, are not nearly as simple as you make them out to be. Most of all, your approach to those that disagree with your (quite simplistic) sort of analysis is indicative of a mindset that really is polarizing America.

Of course, what can I really hope for on a Taco thread? Right?

Well, at least I can hope for and EXPECT that we're not going to devolve into accusations of racism! Meanwhile, as I've said, neither you nor Joe demonstrate that you are concerned with any actual moral high ground.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Well said ^^^
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
Hey guys what's goin' on? :D




...







...















Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
HAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!GUD one G! And Thanks to those calmer heads here. Im all about peace love and doves.. If given the choice.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
The basic test is referring to anyone's race in a way you wouldn't dare say to them in person if you were afraid of them being offended and/or kicking your teeth down your ignorant throat.

That and the rest of what you had to say in that post are so obviously not the "real test," or even a legitimate one, is so obvious that I'm not going to bother.

What I will say is that HOW you approach such a discussion is going to have a big effect on how much (legitimate) offense you might cause. As a college professor in both the Cal. State and UC systems, I can say that I have repeatedly discussed "very offensive" issues having to do with demographics, and I've managed to do so in such a way that my very racially-mixed audiences did not take offense.

Perhaps a big reason is that I recognize a distinction that is LOST on this thread: Racism is discrimination (or advocating discrimination) against a RACIAL group according to attributes supposedly possessed by that RACIAL group that may or may not be in fact possessed by that group.

What most people typically do (apparently you as well) is CONFLATE "racial" attributes with demographic attributes.

For example, according to the FBI site you so dearly love, about 50% of the gangland violence in the US is perpetrated by "blacks." That's a DEMOGRAPHIC fact rather than a RACIAL one, because "blacks" do not have "gangland violence" as an attribute qua race!

By the same token, it's a demographic rather than racial fact that a higher proportion of illegal Hispanic immigrants are involved in gangland activities than are their legal counterparts. So, it CAN'T be a RACIAL issue, because there are both legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants.

What I read from Ron is a fairly simplistic attempt to note some demographic facts. These attempts do NOT make him a racist.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
I just wanted to be post #5000.

Bye!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 7, 2013 - 11:47pm PT
NICE!


edit: And MadBolter,, thank you for your effort and concise summation..

I owe ya a cognac sometime..;-)
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:05am PT
Gawd.....Utterly amazing^^^.. At least Coz cleared up a mystery or two tonight.. Thanks Coz..Things make a little more sense. Ill simply give my pity..
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:06am PT
Joe repeatedly cites "12000 murders," and I show that that figure is simply not the case, not even on the FBI site he cites to support that claim.

CDC data
Firearm homicides in 2010: 11,078
Total homicides in 2010: 16,259
68% OF ALL HOMICIDES INVOLVED A FIREARM
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

FBI data
Firearm homicides in 2010: 8,874
Total homicides in 2010: 13,164
67% OF ALL HOMICIDES INVOLVED A FIREARM
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Pretty simple, ~67% of all homicides in this country involve a firearm, no matter whose data you look at. The fact that the firearm and total homicides are different suggests different definitions or data collection methods, nothing more.

FACT: 67% of all homicides in this country involve a firearm.

You and Joe then spend a dozen posts on sarcasm about how accidents, suicides, and murders are really not really different.

When someone equates being next to a smoker with being held at gunpoint, sarcasm is really the only thing left.

Okay, so I post careful research noting that if "the death toll" is all that matters (confused as I am by your and Joe'e EMPHASIS on murder, murder, murder)

Yes, I am well aware that you attempted to redefine the issue. The issue in the "gun debate sandbox" is NOT stopping deaths, it is stopping GUN deaths. If you want to stop death, you will have to talk to WBraun.

then there ARE many other easily preventable activities that do FAR more damage to this society and cause FAR more death, particularly among young people, than guns do.

So fuking what? Seriously. 67% of all homicides involve a firearm. Nobody but you is talking about stopping death. I couldn't give a fuk if people want to kill themselves and/or their kids by being complete morans and smoking, not wearing seat belts, whatever. THAT is not the issue. The issue is, 67% of all homicides involve a firearm, which are initially purchased through legal channels. Time to stop the flow through those legal channels.

You and Joe then devolve into yet more mirth about how "pulling a cigarette" doesn't "feel" as much of a threat to you as pulling a gun.

I can't speak for Joe, but I was simply pointing out how fuking stupid it is to compare cigarette smoking to shooting someone. My mom smoked when I was growing up and I used to help my dad open is smokey ass bars every morning before school. I'm not dead. I probably would have been if they had shot me instead.

I clarify that, yes, the sense of "proximate threat" is not there with cigarettes, but that as a statistical FACT they do far more damage to and cause far more death in our society than all gun deaths combined (again, particularly to our young people and even infants, who cannot "just walk away").

I agree, exposing kids to second hand smoke is child abuse... but not as bad as holding them at gun point.

I could go on and on.

Clearly.

In every case that I have responded to a stated perspective with hard facts and careful interpretation, you and Joe have initiated a dog-pile response of pure sarcasm and straw-man comparisons.

You should look up strawman. You are in a "discussion" about guns. You bring up cigarettes and prove that they kill more people than guns. Then conclude that guns are not the problem because other things kill more people than guns. Again, look up strawman. The issue is NOT death, the issue is guns.. in particular, reducing homicides involving guns.

Look, if you want to emphasize gun-MURDER, then the actual statistics do NOT support your claims of 12,000 MURDERS per year; it's more like 1/3 of that

See my 2 references above. Provide other references that show total gun homicides at ~4,000. Then we can talk.

Those are FACTS derived from the very same site you most highly tout, coupled with CDC data that is even more reliable than that of the FBI because it is cooked rather than raw data.

Uh, okay, CDC says 11,078 in 2010... I provided links to both above. Show me my mistake.

If you want to emphasize DEATH by gun, then you can at least get to around 11,000 but in that event, you'll have more work to do to distinguish "all that death" from MANY other causes that are even more easily preventable than are gun deaths

Nope. Just homicides involving firearms (11,078)... that's the issue in the gun debate sandbox... if YOU want to talk about all the death from all the other sources it is plenty easy to start another thread... knock yourself out. The issue here... says right in the title... is GUNS.

I just don't think you or anybody else has produced the slightest systematic evidence to indicate that such laws are going to have the desired effect.

There is absolutely NO way to show such laws will work in the US, without passing them. It has never been done. I'm pretty fuking awesome, but even I can't do the impossible (anymore).

There is compelling evidence from other developed countries with high population density that suggests stricter regulation would work. Of course passing them may slightly inconvenience some and trigger psychotic episodes in some insane conspiracy theorists. 67% of all homicides involve firearms, most acquired through straw purchases. For those of us who can think our way out of a paper bag, it makes perfect sense to AT LEAST TRY stricter regulations on firearms.

My point is that YOU and JOE have been the most vociferous gang-bangers on this thread, and you have BOTH been willfully and sarcastically dismissive of any attempts to show you that your particular "take" on the data and how to interpret it is NOT the only reasonable or valid "take" on it.

Between Joe and me, we have addressed EVERY bit of valid GUN RELATED data. I challenge you to show otherwise. Your "take" on it is actually your "take" on an entirely different issue... death.


Meanwhile, as I've said, neither you nor Joe demonstrate that you are concerned with any actual moral high ground.

Of course not. We are concerned with gun homicides... this is the gun debate sandbox after all... moosedrool started the underground "moral high ground" thread quite a while back.
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:23am PT
Ok, I'm lazy...
Anyone have a link to data showing the source of the guns used in homicide? I've never looked it up, and would rather have a clickey.

Now here's an opinion: No doubt many were legally purchased, as sometimes that's what as#@&%es do... buy a gun, kill someone. Many others, I suspect, were stolen, then either used directly or sold on the black market to someone who committed a crime with them. One could argue that the stolen ones were originally legally purchased, and that's fine, but I've seen arguments in this thread stating the owner should be held strictly liable for whatever crime might then be committed with it.

Is that fair to someone who had their house burglarized? Do we do that with knives, cars, VCR's, and such? Oh wait, here comes the "those things don't kill people" argument. Hello stolen high-speed chase!

I don't know, maybe it's like giving a drunk chick a DUI when she drives home, but throwing her BF in jail 'cause she had sex with him earlier. That oughta get you going. It's inflammatory enough.

Anyway, source percentages for firearms used in crimes?
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:28am PT
Wow. 1000 kids die a year from drowning? I'm teaching my kid to swim early. But that, and auto accidents are non-preventable? Damn. And all this time I've been wearing a seat belt when I coulda been screwing the GF's and drinking on the way to Utah.

Oops, thread drift... it's the GUN DEBATE SANDBOX.
Crap. And I thought it was the gun DEATH sandbox.
I... should probably go to sleep now.
Fun stirring the pot though.
Sleep.
Guns.
Pow.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 8, 2013 - 12:29am PT
that WASNT you i saw then??^^
Messages 4221 - 4240 of total 5936 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews