Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

#277 Jul 26 2012 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
Totem wrote:
"...both declared ourselves the winner." --Jo

By stating it in such a fashion, you have implicitly conceded defeat to my superior argument. I accept your conditional surrender.

Totem



I kind of understand Jophiel's argument. The US struggled mightily in Vietnam because we were extremely unfamiliar with the terrain. Not only was it literally foreign land to us, but it was a completely different type of environment than that found anywhere in the US except parts of Hawaii and Florida.

The counter to that argument is that, if putting down a rebellion here on the US, the insurgents don't have disadvantage of unfamiliar terrain. In fact, most of them will probably know their way around better than the military.
#278 Jul 26 2012 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Hey, whoa there, mister. It is precisely 1 hour and 37 minutes past Man Love Thursday over here in A-stan. No ports, no storms, no taking shelter around here since it's oly-oly-all-in-free Friday now.

And for the rest of you who don't know what Man Love Thursaday is, Google it.

Totem
#279 Jul 26 2012 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Jul 26 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
It's not the most eloquent way of saying it, but the presence of weapons in a group does deter authoritarian power grabs.


Not only that, but it also reduces the "us vs them" mentality that many authoritarian regimes foster (and arguably require in order to maintain their power) between their police/military and the civilians. When the only people allowed to use firearms are a nations security forces, then everyone else is "everyone else". Anyone else who has a firearm is a criminal, a terrorist, a rebel, a threat. They'll never meet these people at a shooting range, or gun show, or gun store. They'll never swap stories, experiences, advice, etc. In a society with greater legal access to firearms, those things don't prevent such police/military dealing with armed folks on the fringe when necessary, but it increases the likelihood that they'll think twice when dealing with people whose positions perhaps aren't that extreme and may not be much different than their own. More importantly, it decreases the likelihood of having such extreme differences in the first place (or at least the number of them).

When people can legally own firearms then you can differentiate between those who use them for illegal or extremist purposes and those who don't. When it's illegal for anyone to own firearms then everyone who has them becomes a criminal and extremist in the eyes of the authorities. It's harder to ask the question "was this guy fighting for the right reasons" when that is the case. And just to be clear: I'm not arguing that the absence of relatively easy access to legally obtained firearms among a civilian population means that a nation will become oppressively authoritarian. Just that the presence of those arms decreases the likelihood of it becoming so.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Jul 26 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem
#282 Jul 26 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,861 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.

Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#283 Jul 26 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Switzerland would like to have a word with you.

Edit: Wait a minute. How did I end up pulling that card in this thread instead of the thread about gun crimes?

Edit 2: Yes, I know the link is wikipedia, but it was the first link to pop up on a google search and I'm at work so I don't have a ton of time to dedicate to looking into it. I'll find more reliable info when I get home and post it.

These two links also paint a similar picture.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 12:04pm by Bigdaddyjug

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#284 Jul 26 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?


To be fair, they do come from a very different & elite asshole.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 10:35pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#285 Jul 27 2012 at 3:26 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#286 Jul 27 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.

I wanted a place someone might actually want to defend.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#287 Jul 27 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
paulsol wrote:
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?


Yes, the power of heart can overcome automatic weapons, military armor and atomic fire.






























































ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... No wait, you're serious?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[Message shortened to adhere to formatting restrictions]
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#288 Jul 27 2012 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Those lazy *** Iranians just weren't pure enough of heart.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#289 Jul 27 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#290 Jul 27 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol


I think data like this (even if it was about "gun violence" instead of just gun deaths) doesn't give us a complete picture. If someone breaks into my house, beats me with a baseball bat and steals all my stuff, that doesn't show up on a gun statistic. But if I shoot the intruder, thus preventing the crime, it shows up as "gun violence" (or even a gun death depending on whether the guy dies). Clearly, just counting up the total number of shootings (or even "gun related crimes") isn't going to answer the question we really should be asking: Does a greater rate of firearm ownership increase rates of victimhood or decrease it. I use the term "rates of victimhood", because that should presumably measure the likelihood within a given group of people that you might be the victim of a crime.


The theory proposed by gun advocates (above and beyond the whole "defend against tyranny" bit) is that guns allow people to defend themselves. Thus, we should expect to see lower rates of victimhood when greater gun ownership is present. The theory proposed by gun control advocates is that access to more guns makes it easier to commit crimes and thus should increase that rate. Same thing in reverse. The problem is that it seems like far too many people want to measure that data in ways that automatically make it appear as though guns increase violence. They count every case of someone defending themselves against a crime as an act of violence. Kinda can't have a fair debate when that is the case IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#291 Jul 27 2012 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:

Just for funsies, I took the data that you linked to and scatter plotted it out. Unfortunately, not all countries had data in both tables, so the chart is limited. What you'll see from those that did have entries in both tables is that the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths (note: as lolgaxe pointed out, this is not the same as gun violence) is nearly no correlation at all.

The linear regression was the most favorable to your argument, and it still shows no statistically significant correlation. The handful of outliers are all relatively small countries like Honduras and Ecuador, and don't reflect the (lack of a) trend of the rest of the world.


So there's no statically significant correlation between gun ownership rates and gun deaths? Now that won't get spun both ways or nothin... Smiley: lol


I think data like this (even if it was about "gun violence" instead of just gun deaths) doesn't give us a complete picture. If someone breaks into my house, beats me with a baseball bat and steals all my stuff, that doesn't show up on a gun statistic. But if I shoot the intruder, thus preventing the crime, it shows up as "gun violence" (or even a gun death depending on whether the guy dies). Clearly, just counting up the total number of shootings (or even "gun related crimes") isn't going to answer the question we really should be asking: Does a greater rate of firearm ownership increase rates of victimhood or decrease it. I use the term "rates of victimhood", because that should presumably measure the likelihood within a given group of people that you might be the victim of a crime.


The theory proposed by gun advocates (above and beyond the whole "defend against tyranny" bit) is that guns allow people to defend themselves. Thus, we should expect to see lower rates of victimhood when greater gun ownership is present. The theory proposed by gun control advocates is that access to more guns makes it easier to commit crimes and thus should increase that rate. Same thing in reverse. The problem is that it seems like far too many people want to measure that data in ways that automatically make it appear as though guns increase violence. They count every case of someone defending themselves against a crime as an act of violence. Kinda can't have a fair debate when that is the case IMO.

Of course, if there's no relationship AT ALL between gun ownership rates and gun deaths (regardless of who dies), then that kind of makes the whole "do guns increase or decrease crime" debate pointless, and instead tells you only that certain countries have higher general propensity for crime.

So both sides are wrong, except me. Smiley: tongue

Edit: I suppose it's worth noting that even if you defend yourself against an aggressor/intruder with a gun, somebody still got ******* shot. However, if you have any data that differentiates between "offensive" and "defensive" gun violence, I'll be happy to analyze it.

Edited, Jul 27th 2012 6:57pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#292 Jul 27 2012 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
I suppose it's worth noting that even if you defend yourself against an aggressor/intruder with a gun, somebody still got @#%^ing shot.


Of course. Hence my point about rates of victimhood. We do normally (or should) make a distinction between someone using force to avoid becoming a victim and someone using it to make someone a victim. IMO the more important thing is whether the guy who woke up one day and said "I'm going to go rob someone" succeeds or fails. I don't see the fact that he got injured (or even killed) in the attempt as a negative social statistic, but a positive one. But traditional gun statistics will *always* measure that as a negative. Which is why those methods are flawed. Surely we should make a distinction between someone shooting an intruder in their home and someone shooting someone in order to steal their property. But we don't.

Quote:
However, if you have any data that differentiates between "offensive" and "defensive" gun violence, I'll be happy to analyze it.


It's hard to find (because of the wrong way we collect the data in the first place). Fact is that most of the folks who collect gun violence statistics are (quite logically) pro gun control. That's why the collect the data. That's why they pass laws mandating certain statistics be collected and calculated. So even "official" statistics kept by various state and federal agencies will tend to use skewed methodology because those who pushed for the collection of them were almost certainly on the pro gun control side as well.

I don't feel like spending the time on a Friday afternoon tracking down all the source studies and whatnot, but here's a reasonable starting point. Of particular interest IIRC is the Kleck study (reference 1 on that page). The point is that even if Kleck's numbers are off, they aren't off by much (2.5 versus 1.5 million defensive uses a year). Even with the reduced numbers arrived at by other sources, we're still talking about guns used to defend against a crime 15 times more often than they are used to commit one. It's a pretty amazing set of statistics, which most people have simply never had presented to them (insert rant about liberal media here).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Jul 27 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
As you said, it's Friday, and the last thing I'm going to do is dig around that silly site looking for a solid data set (the first link in the footnotes leads to a page that no longer exists, btw).
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#294 Jul 27 2012 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
As you said, it's Friday, and the last thing I'm going to do is dig around that silly site looking for a solid data set (the first link in the footnotes leads to a page that no longer exists, btw).


Didn't even realize there was a link on that page. Fine. I cut and pasted the first part of the first footnote into google and got this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Jul 27 2012 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's part of it. There's also the obvious differences between moving US armor to and through a foreign jungle and moving it to and through Ohio.
Why Ohio huh?! Why can't it be Indiana this time.

I wanted a place someone might actually want to defend.

So why Ohio? We can just move the R&R HoF somewhere else.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#296Palpitus1, Posted: Jul 29 2012 at 3:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.
#297 Jul 29 2012 at 4:31 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
602 posts
Palpitus1 wrote:
Kelyvquayo wrote:
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.


Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.

I guess too bad Poland and its Underground didn't have their virtual 2nd Amendment rights stricken in say, 1938! Silly Poles and your Warsaw Uprising, largely dependent on small arms.

America will never be so horrible that its threatened by its own citizens bearing arms. THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. MY FAITH IS MY FLAG.


It says at the very top of your link that the Warsaw uprising failed, so I honestly don't know what your point is.
#298 Jul 29 2012 at 4:41 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Siesen wrote:
Palpitus1 wrote:
Kelyvquayo wrote:
Are we in denial that stuff actually happens? or are we stuck on the fairy-tale of "it can't happen here"?
It is happening.


Yep. Most American citizens including liberals could never fathom their government ever turning evil/fascist, even though it's happened to nearly 100% of the governments on Earth. (but not ever America! We special shining light!) "Revolution" in their minds is a history lesson. "Colonialism" is a quaint notion that they affect with a British accent. And so on.

I guess too bad Poland and its Underground didn't have their virtual 2nd Amendment rights stricken in say, 1938! Silly Poles and your Warsaw Uprising, largely dependent on small arms.

America will never be so horrible that its threatened by its own citizens bearing arms. THAT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. MY FAITH IS MY FLAG.


It says at the very top of your link that the Warsaw uprising failed, so I honestly don't know what your point is.


I think that is his point. If the citizens had all been armed with 2nd Amendment rights, they would have defeated the Germans and ended WW2.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#299 Jul 29 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
No, but it would have made occupation more difficult. Greater Poland was lacking quite a bit on the hardware end too. Poland has also historically been bouncing in and out of the German sphere of influence, with the HRE etc etc.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#300 Jul 29 2012 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Totem wrote:
Getting back to the original topic, I'd like to put forward the opinion that the gang that has been openly raping and pillaging this country since 1990 isn't the GOP or the Democrats. It's the Ivy League. They're just different turds dropping from the same a$$hole. Can I get a witness?

Totem


/Raises hand. Well said.

Also. I would say that 'Belief in the Cause' is the deciding factor in the outcome of any conflict. The side that has its heart in the fight is the one who will come out on top, regardless of firepower.....It may take time and turn into a lengthy insurgency type scenario, but the side with their hearts in it will eventually come out on top. Every time.

After all, who really wants to die for something that they don't totally believe in?


Yes, the power of heart can overcome automatic weapons, military armor and atomic fire.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... No wait, you're serious?

[i]ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah......etc.




Unfortunately, the history of international armed conflict does not support your feeble attempt at derision.

You should run for government office. With the grasp of history that you seem to possess you'd fit right in.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#301 Jul 29 2012 at 10:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We're talking about the Warsaw uprising that came to a sudden end when the Germans sent in armor to level the place block by block, right? Or is there another uprising I didn't know about where they defeated the tanks with shotguns and pistols?

Edited, Jul 29th 2012 12:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 326 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)