The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2013, 12:47 PM   #76
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,741

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
How's it paranoid? I've already pointed out the ridiculousness of such massive overreactions. As I said, we have over 10k dead each year in the US in drunken driving crashes, yet nobody calls for these measures to be taken with alcohol.

Several things on your list violate the 2nd: "Closing the 'terror gap' gun sales to SUSPECTED terrorists." I shouldn't have to explain that one. Further, "safety features" you want - such as forced trigger lock usage - have already been ruled a violation of the 2nd by the US Supreme Court. Why did it go that far? Because local liberal-controlled municipalities (in this case DC) have attempted to subvert the Constitution.

But oh wait - you're a Brit. You really don't know what you're doing.

Let's apply your rationale to alcohol, which should already be applied since after all you and yours are so terribly worried about deaths and ****.

Background Checks to All Booze Purchases
Close the Drunkard Gap: Prohibit Booze Sales to Suspected Drunkards
Stop the Sale of Large Capacity Alcohol Containers (aka Kegs and 24 packs)
Require Booze Owners to Report Lost or Stolen Booze
Restrict Large-Volume Booze Sales
Require Licensed Dealers to Adopt Safeguards to Prevent Booze Thefts
Require Licensed Dealers to Perform Background Checks on Liquor Store Employees
Prohibit The Transfer of Booze Inventory Without Background Checks After a Dealer's License Has Been Revoked
Support new technologies to help law enforcement more effectively trace drunk driving booze and supporting development of safety features to childproof booze


What... Crickets?

Let's look at the numbers, courtesy of the Mother Jones Mass Shooting Study.

Point 1 based on MOJO's own admission: Only 25% of mass shootings have involved so-called "assault weapons." If you break down that figure, it amounts to exactly 7.5 people/year injured or killed by such a weapon. Contrast that to 10,228 people killed in drunken driving crashes in 2010 alone, including 211 children.

Yet people are still boozing up without a flinch.

Point 2 based on MOJO's own admission: 981 deaths and injuries have taken place since 1982 in "mass shootings." That averages out to under 30/year.

You and yours want to harass legal owners and trash the Constitution to save 30 lives a year while boozing your brains out and swerving over the median. If you take the 10,228 dead in 2010 as an average drunken driving figure, that amounts to 204,560 killed in drunken driving crashes over the same 30 year period of MOJO's mass shooting study.

So if you aren't going to push these weirdo restrictions on booze ownership, shut your pie hole about guns, little man.

Have a nice day.

You'd repeal First amended rights to salve your delusional feelings about attempts to introduce sanity into the gun debate.

Talk about paranoid.

Run along little girly.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 01:00 PM   #77
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
You'd repeal First amended rights to salve your delusional feelings about attempts to introduce sanity into the gun debate.

Talk about paranoid.

Run along little girly.
I would repeal "First amended rights" <-- WTF is that? Illiterate British friend: The 1st applies to government censorship of dissent, not someone telling another person in a debate to be consistent or stick a sock in it. /facepalm

And ad hominem abusive is your only response. You will not justify your views on guns especially when put into contrast with far more dangerous activities because you simply cannot do so, just like all other hysterical gunsnatchers I have discussed these statistics with.

My point is proven. Now go have your Heineken.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 02-10-2013 at 01:06 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 02:51 PM   #78
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,741

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I would repeal "First amended rights" <-- WTF is that? Illiterate British friend: The 1st applies to government censorship of dissent, not someone telling another person in a debate to be consistent or stick a sock in it. /facepalm

And ad hominem abusive is your only response. You will not justify your views on guns especially when put into contrast with far more dangerous activities because you simply cannot do so, just like all other hysterical gunsnatchers I have discussed these statistics with.

My point is proven. Now go have your Heineken.
Good grief.

I suggested you'd repeal the 1st to protect the 2nd, not that your stupid comment was a violation of the 1st. Try and keep up.

As for your absurd false equivalency of comparing guns to alcohol, feel free to keep talking to yourself, it's absurdity at its finest.

You are incapable of having any rational discussion about guns. You were probably more interesting as a Marxist.

As for 'your point is proven,' all you've done is prove my assertion that you are delusional.

In the real world.

Quote:
March 2, 2011—"There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines," states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a news conference." Such magazines transform a gun "into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device," Beck notes.

February 26, 2011—Referring to increasing seizures of semiautomatic assault weapons that are trafficked in from outside states, Brockton (Massachusetts) Police Department Captain Emanuel Gomes says, "We're literally outgunned. You're talking about the kind of firepower that can go through vehicles, through vests, and that can literally go through a house."

January 16, 2011—After one of his officers is ambushed by a teenager wielding a semiautomatic AR-15 and fired at 26 times, Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty tells The Oklahoman, "There are just more and more assault rifles out there, and it is becoming a bigger threat to law enforcement each day. They are outgunned." Citty states that he sees "no practical reason" why a civilian would need an AR-15 or similiar military-style weapon.

November 21, 2010—Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda states,"In my opinion, [AK-47 rifles and other high-powered semiautomatic assault weapons] exist for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill."

November 15, 2010—After losing his son and another officer in a shootout to sovereign citizens armed with a semiautomatic AK-47, West Memphis [Arkansas] Police Chief Bob Paudert purchases 30 AR-15s for use by patrol officers in the field. "We're going to protect our officers," he says. "Our times have changed. And we've got to change with our times. We cannot allow our officers to continue to be killed."

October 25, 2010—Ten national law enforcement organizations form the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. Founding members are the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chief Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Sheriffs' Association, Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation. The partnership is described as "an unprecedented joint effort by law enforcement leaders to address gun violence in an era of shrinking law enforcement budgets and rising levels of officer deaths." In their Statement of Principles, the new coalition states, "As law enforcement organizations, we believe the level and lethality of gun violence directed at police officers requires an organized and aggressive response from policy makers at the federal, state, and local levels."
The list goes on.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campa...ssault-weapons

Last edited by DenverBrit; 02-10-2013 at 03:01 PM..
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:13 PM   #79
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Good grief.

I suggested you'd repeal the 1st to protect the 2nd, not that your stupid comment was a violation of the 1st. Try and keep up.
I did no such thing, therefore at the best your odd remark was a strawman/non sequitur.

Quote:
As for your absurd false equivalency of comparing guns to alcohol, feel free to keep talking to yourself, it's absurdity at its finest.
Labeling it absurd and false doesn't make it absurd and false. Explain why it's absurd and false. Then you can explain what you are willing to do to remedy the far greater problem of drunken driving. I expect at the bare minimum the same kinds of legislation you screechingly demand for guns. Thus far, you've only tried to laugh it off and change the subject.

You like to drink, don't you?

Quote:
You are incapable of having any rational discussion about guns. You were probably more interesting as a Marxist.
Except that asserting I'm not capable of having a rational discussion about guns doesn't cover for nor negate the need for you to address your glaring inconsistencies on the drunken driving vs guns issue. You either want to save lives or you don't. If you do, then go more vigorously after those things which are far more a social menace than extremely rare psychos with guns randomly shooting at people are. If you won't...

You're in the adult world now, and giggling isn't going to negate a need for an adult response.

I've already presented "assault weapons" info from a liberal source. Not liking this and wanting a bigger body count to try to hang onto, you are as your political allies are, attempting to widen the net beyond the initial hysteria over "mass shooters" to include all gun violence regardless because the "mass shooting" angle isn't producing enough bodies and enough coins to fill the political cash registers.

Yet again I must state: Put your money where your mouth is and call for the type of legislation you demand for guns to be applied to alcohol sales, at the absolute bare minimum. I don't think that's too much to ask, yet with you and those like you, asking it is like pulling teeth for some odd reason.

Easy math: 30/yr or 10,000+/yr. Which is it?

Personally, I think listening to experienced law enforcement officers is much more beneficial than pasting mined quotes from a liberal gunsnatching organization. Refer to the County Sheriffs of Colorado Position Paper on Possible Gun Control Legislation.

Thankfully plenty of Colorado peace officers don't have their brains up their backsides.

Your Titanic is sinking and all you've done is grab for a bucket.

Is this gun-phobia a Limey thing or what? I'd suggest if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:19 PM   #80
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,741

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I did no such thing, therefore at the best your odd remark was a strawman/non sequitur.



Labeling it absurd and false doesn't make it absurd and false. Explain why it's absurd and false. Then you can explain what you are willing to do to remedy the far greater problem of drunken driving. I expect at the bare minimum the same kinds of legislation you screechingly demand for guns. Thus far, you've only tried to laugh it off and change the subject.

You like to drink, don't you?



Except that asserting I'm not capable of having a rational discussion about guns doesn't cover for nor negate the need for you to address your glaring inconsistencies on the drunken driving vs guns issue. You either want to save lives or you don't. If you do, then go more vigorously after those things which are far more a social menace than extremely rare psychos with guns randomly shooting at people are. If you won't...

You're in the adult world now, and giggling isn't going to negate a need for an adult response.



I've already presented "assault weapons" info from a liberal source. Not liking this and wanting a bigger body count to try to hang onto, you are as your political allies are, attempting to widen the net beyond the initial hysteria over "mass shooters" to include all gun violence regardless because the "mass shooting" angle isn't producing enough bodies and enough coins to fill the political cash registers.

Yet again I must state: Put your money where your mouth is and call for the type of legislation you demand for guns to be applied to alcohol sales, at the absolute bare minimum. I don't think that's too much to ask, yet with you and those like you, asking it is like pulling teeth for some odd reason.

Easy math: 30/yr or 10,000+/yr. Which is it?

Personally, I think listening to experienced law enforcement officers is much more beneficial than pasting mined quotes from a liberal gunsnatching organization. Refer to the County Sheriffs of Colorado Position Paper on Possible Gun Control Legislation.

Thankfully plenty of Colorado peace officers don't have their brains up their backsides.

Your Titanic is sinking and all you've done is grab for a bucket.

Is this gun-phobia a Limey thing or what? I'd suggest if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.
This is the third time in a row you've mentioned my ethnic origins.

What's your point, other than being a xenophobe?

As for my hating guns, that's just another example of your paranoia and inability to discuss this issue like an adult.

Now, show posts of mine that demonstrate my hate of gun ownership.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 04:36 PM   #81
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
This is the third time in a row you've mentioned my ethnic origins.

What's your point, other than being a xenophobe?
Deflecting, labeling, namecalling.

1) I'm part British.
2) National orgins mean a lot and explain much considering your obvious ignorance of US laws and culture.
3) I'm also descended of US Revolutionary War veterans. Perhaps we just have a thing against pushy redcoats/bloody backs.


Quote:
As for my hating guns, that's just another example of your paranoia and inability to discuss this issue like an adult.
More labels covering for an inability to discuss the issue in context. I'm waiting for ONE example of where you're morally consistent and are willing to put your money where your mouth is on the booze issue. Ante up.

Quote:
Now, show posts of mine that demonstrate my hate of gun ownership.
Deflection and topic change. Your lack of consistency on the booze issue speaks for itself.

You want to save lives or not, buddy?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 05:19 PM   #82
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,741

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Deflecting, labeling, namecalling.

Yes, cut it out so I can stop responding to it.


More labels covering for an inability to discuss the issue in context.

What issue? Gun control, 2nd amendment? I keep trying, but you deflect with an alcohol rant. Former 12 stepper?

I'm waiting for ONE example of where you're morally consistent and are willing to put your money where your mouth is on the booze issue. .

If you want to discuss 'booze', go find someone who gives a rat's arse. The thread title says 'GUN CONTROL' and so far, you've discussed alcohol, my ethnic origins and little else.

Deflection and topic change.

What's your problem? ADD? I was responding to your comment:
Quote:
if you hate gun ownership so much, you're living in the wrong country.
Talking to you is as like talking to Gaffney, which is like herding cats.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 07:22 PM   #83
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,315

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Nobody you know fought in the Revolutionary War, nyuk. You're full of it.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2013, 07:27 PM   #84
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 24,315

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

The Deleterious Effects of Mass Media on Public Opinion: The “Mass Shooting” Storyline
By Ex-Leftist
12/26/2012
Recently, I wrote about in part relating to the mass shooting at the Aurora Mall in Colorado [1] and needless to say, the media are again sinking their teeth in to the gun issue. Not only does such hysteria-hype bring in more frightened viewers and increase advertising revenues for the media, but this kind of (selective) coverage advances the media’s anti-gun liberal agenda. Coverage on certain subjects in the mass media (especially national-level television and magazines) conform to certain left-of-center narratives, regardless of how accurate they actually are, even if statistics and evidence say otherwise. I’ve concluded there are two kinds of science: the science of scientists and cherry-picked science as portrayed by the media based on causes célèbre. This article is in part about media science.
Emotion-driven propaganda has been a staple of the left for many years. That those who push their activism with such techniques is in part what alienated me from the left. I found it very bothersome that emotion - and not reason - were being used to convince people into action. In looking for reasoned arguments, I found political narratives instead. The predictable storyline of media coverage regarding mass shootings is no different. Worse, this emotionally-manipulative coverage is considered enough for us to surrender our Constitutional rights (in spite of warnings of the perils of a disarmed citizenry from many of our Founding Fathers).
We are told, with no shortage of very loud, nearly endless emotionally hysterical appeals, that we must at least “ban assault weapons” if not guns in toto, because they keep being used in mass shootings. This is the basis of this specific media-science narrative, the facts notwithstanding.
A selective study by Mother Jones Magazine, [2] conducted shortly after the shootings in Aurora is often cited as a basis for this activism (including by leftwing professors). Never mind that most actual mass shootings were culled out of the study (robberies and gang-related shootings) and of those actually counted, only 25% actually used what the media are referring to as “assault weapons.” Regarding the killings in Connecticut, the assault weapon angle has been the focus and that the killer also carried two pistols has been neglected. Likewise with quotations from the Mother Jones study, in which it was admitted that 62% of the shootings were done with regular handguns as well; 88 of 142 total in specific. Only 35 were done with “assault weapons,” (rounded up to 25% of the total) and this writer assumes that these are generalized figures, that the actual numbers of people who were killed/injured by X type of weapon (or even flying glass or splintered wood instead of a bullet) in each shooting is not recorded. James Holmes used multiple gun types, for example, as did the shooters at Columbine. Some victims were injured by debris only.
Of course, a pistol doesn’t conjure a made-by-Hollywood image of a Terminator-esque villain letting loose on crowds of civilians making us all feel vulnerable and running for a catchall remedy, thus there is no useful emotional response elicited in readers which can be translated into political action by malleable, unwitting crowds. How many people in this country are now saying that our Constitutional rights “aren’t worth it” to save an average of 30 lives a year due to this type of media coverage? Worse, if you divide this 30-victim annual average by the 25% Mother Jones assault weapon usage figure, you round up to an average of 8 victims per year. EIGHT.
Let’s analyze Mother Jones’ data and draw some useful comparisons.
The Mother Jones study listed select shootings from 1982 to 2012, again setting criteria of their own definition that omitted most actual mass shootings, namely robberies and gang fights. In doing so, it is worth mentioning, that they invoked the old Marxian bogeyman-meme of the Angry White Male™ as most of the non-culled shooters in their study were white males. The insinuations are obvious and conform to another popular media narrative. While Mother Jones did admit to ruling out mass shootings in the text of the article (they did not tell us that they ruled out MOST of them statistically, however), in looking a the headline itself, it gives no indication of that whatsoever and makes a generic and thus all-encompassing reference to mass shootings as if they were all being counted. The reader assumes that all mass shootings are included in the study by first glance by implication. Manipulative and sensationalist? Loaded and leading?
By Mother Jones’ data, a total of 981 deaths and injuries have taken place in 62 mass shootings over the past 30 years from 1982 to 2012. That comes out to fewer than 30 per year. Consider that in a nation of over 300,000,000 people, an average of 30 annual victims (including survivors) are being used to fan mass hysteria and attempt to roll back our Constitutional rights. Eight annual victims in specific are being used to push “assault weapons” bans. (Hands on your 2nd Amendment rights but hands OFF our 1st Amendment rights!) Admittedly, even worse, Mother Jones concedes that the large majority of perpetrators in these shootings were mentally ill.
Now for a little more context.
Consider a favored cause of the environmentalist left: green, wholesome, natural gas. By US federal government figures, from 1992 to 2011 only (that leaves the Mother Jones mass shootings study with 11 more years of data), there were 10,265 reported natural gas pipeline-related incidents resulting in injuries and deaths. [3] In counting injuries in with deaths as Mother Jones did, it totals to 1,935, or an average of 102 per year. These figures are not reported in the media, let alone alarmingly so, and certainly are not used as a weapon against the natural gas industry to roll back natural gas usage and production, nor is the natural gas industry referred to and demonized as the Gas Industrial Complex or simply Big Gas. The emotionally tormented are not on Twitter calling for pro-natural gas activists and lobbyists to be set aflame. Gas is considered “green” and thus is excluded from the usual anti-business rhetoric from major media. Nautral gas CEOs are exempt from the kind of anti-CEO hostility that Hollywood and New York tend to enjoy portraying as they mock their favorite capitalist pig targets such as oil executives (J.R. Ewing in Dallas and Blake Carrington in Dynasty) and chemical company CEOs (Maxwell Potterdam in the movie Men at Work).
Odd, isn’t it? Let’s look at another one. Drunken driving. [4]
This is only in reference to actual deaths (you can assume injuries are many times greater than these figures). Annual US deaths from drunken driving in 2010: 10,228, which accounted for a massive 31% of all traffic-related deaths that year. 211 children were killed by alcohol-impaired drivers, vastly more than people of all ages killed annually in random shootings. If we are to assume the 2010 death figure is a general average, then over the past 20 years to compare to the length of the Mother Jones study, we can calculate that approximately 204,560 people have been killed in drunken driving crashes since 1982.
Yet not one peep out of the media, and chances are that many of them go out for cocktails after they go off-air.
I think I’ve said enough. Hands off my Heineken.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 06:56 AM   #85
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Yup.

I suspect that many of these tough talkers would soil themselves when presented with a real-world situation.

I'm reminded of the folks who do a couple months of martial arts and think themselves Bruce Lee. Until one trains with realistic scenarios, all the babble is just bull****.
Yep. The gun lunatics imagine themselves morphing into Clint Eastwood at the first sign of trouble. The reality would probably more often resemble this guy:

BroncoInferno is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 07:24 AM   #86
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Talking to you is as like talking to Gaffney, which is like herding cats.
Once you've read two or three nyuk posts you've read them all. I no longer bother.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 PM.


Denver Broncos