TV's Frink

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

Yep.

Sorry my post adds nothing to the conversation though.

“Yep.” = I agree with you and support your position. No further explanation required.

“Nope.” = I don’t agree, but won’t elaborate, because I might have to engage in logical discourse that requires more thought and effort than I’m willing to provide, and I might not come away feeling like I’ve “won”. However, I still want the attention that posting provides.

I wouldn’t come at you this hard if you hadn’t gone after chyron for similar behavior.

That’s fine.

Eh.

Leia more of a main character than Luke? Lol.

And more to the point, other than Leia, there’s like no female presence in the entire OT or PT.

(Don’t even get me started on Padme)

Possessed said:

I need some whisk

Here you go my friend.

Anchorhead said:

she hasnt steered my wrong

Anyway, regarding the whole Spidey debate, I have no opinion because I saw the first one and that’s it. For whatever reason I’ve really never been able to make myself care about any superhero movies beyond the Burton Batman ones.

JEDIT: Not entirely true, I did enjoy most of the first Iron Man, as well as the first Avengers. GotG were both pretty good too. But Spiderman, Superman, etc…never could get into those.

Hey, I like most of your politics posts.

Not a fan of your women posts.

It happens.

A good person, a trusted colleague or friend, a stand-up guy.

I just want to know who Kevin James has compromising pictures of.

I’ve never seen this movie.

Probably.

I don’t understand the complaint about the third flashback. Thought it made perfect sense.

Wow.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I always knew Papa Smurf was a bot

DuracellEnergizer said:

I always knew Papa Smurf was a bottom.

Follow the rules or get out.

hairy_hen said:

I’m waiting for the self-shooting guns, myself. Once those are out, then the massacres can happen on their own, and everybody will legitimately be able to claim it’s not their responsibility, because no one will have actually done anything.

Come to think of it, it won’t be that much different than it is now.

Someday guns won’t be necessary because people will be able to transform into guns.

moviefreakedmind said:

Knife violence and gun violence is the biggest false equivalence in political discourse these days, with the sole exception of Trump and Hillary being equivalents.

Yep.

Sorry my post adds nothing to the conversation though.

Sure.

Tyr, you are reasonable.

Guns are not.

I don’t care if I’m being unreasonable. I am not the one who supports the right to guns, a position I find completely unreasonable in any manner.

So be it.

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I asked how banning scary-looking guns would help and you provided no meaningful response. If anybody should be asking themselves why they even bother, it’s me, not you.

Then don’t bother.

Or you could improve the quality of your posts, or take your own advice, like when you pressed chyron for an answer about his religious beliefs and got all pissy when you didn’t get one right away.

Either way, you present as irrational and hypocritical. If you don’t want to have the debate, fine, but don’t clutter the thread with empty responses because you’re being asked to provide more than snark.

Well ok then.

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

I think there’s something about a document or something that guarantees rights like that. I dunno. It’s pretty obscure.

You know very well that lots of people talk about their God given right to have a gun, which is utter nonsense.

The Constitution is a different story, but you also know very well that there’s two arguments to what that actually means, and the Founding Fathers certainly weren’t referring to guns that can kill 100 people in a minute or two, which didn’t exist at the time.

Tyrphanax said:

Jay said:

Jeebus said:

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

mass killings… why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available?

When were guns less prevalent in the US than today?

Interestingly, the murder rate has been going down for quite a while now. It raised a bit in recent years, but its nowhere near the rate it was in the 80s.

EDIT: That’s just the general murder rate, gun murders are, indeed, going up.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but it looks like the percentage of murders committed with firearms went up, not the absolute number. But yeah, crime is relatively low, though you’d think it was the purge based on media coverage.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.

We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.

Sounds great.

How many of the killings will stop if we ban the scary guns? That’s an honest question. I’d like to know how many of the people who would die this year would not die if the scary guns were banned, because those are the only ones that stand a chance of being banned outright.

In 2014, 248 people were killed with rifles. That accounts for 3% of all gun deaths, 4% of all gun deaths excluding non-classified firearms. If we took that 4% figure and applied it to the 1,959 gun deaths caused by non-classified firearms, that would be an additional 78 people killed. So, 326. Assuming that “scary guns” just refers to assault weapons and not all rifles, then the number would be less than 326. The question is “how much less?”

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Disclaimer: There’s a decent chance I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Thanks. This is the core of what I’m arguing. Even banning ALL rifles, including the non-scary ones, would have a minimal impact on overall gun deaths, and that’s assuming that at least some of those rifle users wouldn’t commit the same crime with a handgun. We’d have to be far more restrictive in our application of gun control to have a significant impact on gun deaths.

Yeah, I believe I’ve made a few in depth posts like this before with many facts and figures and statistics that show that gun crime is fractional (but over-reported) and that we see many hundreds more deaths from automobiles and cars every year, but generally they are glossed over and not talked about.

Cars are used every day by just about everyone to provide transportation for a variety of useful reasons.

Beyond the tiny minuscule fraction of times someone actually defends themselves or someone else with a gun (and probably overrun by times there’s an accident, though I admit I’m just guessing), what use is a gun? And I’m not counting entertainment, any more than I count entertainment with a car.

It’s really hard to know what you think based on that.

There’s a ton of people who claim they have a right to recreation with a killing machine. Dunno why, but they do.

oojason said:

ted to Mars