By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
CaptainExplosion said:
jason1637 said:

Damn that was close.

Finally he did something right.

This situation probably happened but I feel that this news became public as a warning to Iran that everything is on the table.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Finally he did something right.

This situation probably happened but I feel that this news became public as a warning to Iran that everything is on the table.

Or because Iran claims the drone was over their territory. Wouldn't that look agressive from the US if that was true?

Or like Colbert was saying "Who's saying the truth, Iran or America... was a question that was easy to answer in the past"



jason1637 said:

Damn that was close.

It reads as, Donald Trump : the live show

But i'm happy for the avoided disaster.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Possibly heading towards a war on Iran. US secures Iranian oil supplies and great for American economy and large multinational corporations. Liberate Iran for its oil and install puppet government controlled by the US. Americans love seeing US troops liberate another country and remove corrupt government and install a friendly US controlled puppet government. Iraq and Afghanistan have been liberated and have vibrant democracies where people now live great lives.

Yeah, because that has worked for the US how many times.



jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

1) Your doubt is not a valid counterargument, and it seems to be based on a fundamental misconception. Suicide is not often the end result of a long and careful deliberation through which an individual decides rationally that they would rather be dead. It is often impulsive and immediate, which means that avoiding that initial impulse does save lives. About 90% of individuals who attempt suicide and survive do not die by suicide. That means if we shift suicide attempts from one of the most immediate and effective methods (ie firearms), many of those individuals will either not attempt suicide (due to not having the means to attempt suicide in a manner they are comfortable with) or survive the suicide attempt.

2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/?utm_term=.b6aa56c75d0f

3) You seem to be moving the goalposts. The initial argument I am rebutting is the idea that accidents should not be factored into the conversation on gun control. This point makes no sense, and saying that houses also burn down is not an applicable argument as it has no bearing on this discussion. That said, it is also a pretty poor comparison. How many people do you think would die from inadequate shelter if we removed housing?

4) You seem to have missed my point. I am not accusing the OP of lying about the statistics, I am accusing him of using the statistics to lie. Basically, he seems to have cherry picked data from the years and sources which would furthest skew the data in order to draw a misleading conclusion. His numbers are accurate, but the fact that almost every number he picked seems to be well above the statistics for the year he set as a baseline is fundamentally troubling and it implies dishonestly on the part of the OP.

Overall this reddit post was quite poor. It fails at making its central argument and manipulates data in deceitful ways to render its conclusions.

1. My doubt is based on the fact that firearm suicides make up less than half of all suicides and that there are countries with strict gun laws that have high sucide rates. If someone wan'ts to off themselves they will find other methods.

2. Where on that link says if the victims were armed and were actually committing a crime?

3. I was just trying to show that accidents happen through other things beside guns and it would be irrational to ban these things. Like someone else mentioned in this thread there are laws about cars that prevent accidents from happening. There are also regulations when it comes ot building homes that prevent accidents from happening. Like these things there could be stronger gun laws that prevent these accidents while not infringing on people's rights.

4. Well the dude mentioned that not every site had all the statistics so he had to use different sources and even use infor from 2016 and 2017. I could see how it comes of as misleading but considering how much effort a post like that would take I don't think the person was purposely being misleading.

1) This argument is bad. Saying that only half of suicides involve firearms is irrelevant. While I am not implying that 100% of suicides would be prevented by gun control laws, or even 100% of suicides involving firearms would be prevented, it cannot be ignored that a policy which had an effect on this subgroup would have a far from negligible effect on the overall group. To rephrase, the argument that half of suicides involve firearms would only be relevant if this were an insignificant portion of the whole, but it is not. Reducing suicides by 20k per year would be absolutely monumental and while that wouldn't be an expected outcome, you have not presented any counterargument to the overall point that an impact on this subgroup would be profoundly relevant.

2) Feel free to read about each individual case if you would like. I don't really see where you are going with this line of questioning though.

3) This point is changing the argument. The argument is about whether accidents should be discussed in relation to gun control laws. They should. End of story.

4) You can interpret "the dude"'s intentions however you would like, but at the end of the day, he lied to you. Whether that lie was accidental or purposeful, I can't say. All I can say is that there are massive inaccuracies in his post which severely bias it, presenting a fundamentally flawed interpretation of reality (ie a lie).

As for how much effort that post would take, anyone who knows what they were doing could whip it up in under an hour easy. It isn't some monumental effort. It is a quick google search and some simply addition.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
jason1637 said:

Damn that was close.

That was a fun read.

"There are no manned drones."
"It's 'locked and loaded'. Learn the terminology."
"It's 'sites', not 'sights'."

But now we have to look for the hidden meaning. I think Trump had a bad dream, woke up and then took to Twitter to talk about what he remembered of the dream. I think the hidden meaning is that Trump can say anything and there will still people who believe him. That's the message here.

 I am sure Eric will be able to provide us with the proper excuse and direct us to the people to blame for Trump grammer and spelling errors.



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1. My doubt is based on the fact that firearm suicides make up less than half of all suicides and that there are countries with strict gun laws that have high sucide rates. If someone wan'ts to off themselves they will find other methods.

2. Where on that link says if the victims were armed and were actually committing a crime?

3. I was just trying to show that accidents happen through other things beside guns and it would be irrational to ban these things. Like someone else mentioned in this thread there are laws about cars that prevent accidents from happening. There are also regulations when it comes ot building homes that prevent accidents from happening. Like these things there could be stronger gun laws that prevent these accidents while not infringing on people's rights.

4. Well the dude mentioned that not every site had all the statistics so he had to use different sources and even use infor from 2016 and 2017. I could see how it comes of as misleading but considering how much effort a post like that would take I don't think the person was purposely being misleading.

1) This argument is bad. Saying that only half of suicides involve firearms is irrelevant. While I am not implying that 100% of suicides would be prevented by gun control laws, or even 100% of suicides involving firearms would be prevented, it cannot be ignored that a policy which had an effect on this subgroup would have a far from negligible effect on the overall group. To rephrase, the argument that half of suicides involve firearms would only be relevant if this were an insignificant portion of the whole, but it is not. Reducing suicides by 20k per year would be absolutely monumental and while that wouldn't be an expected outcome, you have not presented any counterargument to the overall point that an impact on this subgroup would be profoundly relevant.

2) Feel free to read about each individual case if you would like. I don't really see where you are going with this line of questioning though.

3) This point is changing the argument. The argument is about whether accidents should be discussed in relation to gun control laws. They should. End of story.

4) You can interpret "the dude"'s intentions however you would like, but at the end of the day, he lied to you. Whether that lie was accidental or purposeful, I can't say. All I can say is that there are massive inaccuracies in his post which severely bias it, presenting a fundamentally flawed interpretation of reality (ie a lie).

As for how much effort that post would take, anyone who knows what they were doing could whip it up in under an hour easy. It isn't some monumental effort. It is a quick google search and some simply addition.

1. Guns are not the reason people want to commit sucide. If you take away the guns their emotions that make them want to end their lives are still there and since most suicides are not done with firearms these people would just find another way to commit suicides. If we take the UK for an example. In 1996/1997 they passed some gun control laws but sucide rate the following years had increased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_Kingdom (you can see the chart when you click on the suicide rates thing under statistics). And Japan si another example of a country with strict gun laws and a high suicide rates. Guns are just one means people use to commit suicide. Take that away people will just find other ways.

2. You claimed that "Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present." and I've never seen evidence of this that's why I asked for a source. The source you provided does not say anything about this.

3. There will always be accidents for a lot of things. That's just people being careless. The primary focus of gun control laws are to prevent violent gun crimes so adding accidents to the equation isnt fair because they will still happen.

4. The guy wanted to show that the issue of gun control is not as big as the media and some politicians make it to be. Yeah some of his evidence was a bit misleading because he said himself that he was not able to find full info and had to use info form past years. But even with more accurate stats you provided earlier the gun problem is not as big as the media makes it out to be,

To read through or even skyrim through most of the info and break it down it still probably would take an hour or two.



jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

1) This argument is bad. Saying that only half of suicides involve firearms is irrelevant. While I am not implying that 100% of suicides would be prevented by gun control laws, or even 100% of suicides involving firearms would be prevented, it cannot be ignored that a policy which had an effect on this subgroup would have a far from negligible effect on the overall group. To rephrase, the argument that half of suicides involve firearms would only be relevant if this were an insignificant portion of the whole, but it is not. Reducing suicides by 20k per year would be absolutely monumental and while that wouldn't be an expected outcome, you have not presented any counterargument to the overall point that an impact on this subgroup would be profoundly relevant.

2) Feel free to read about each individual case if you would like. I don't really see where you are going with this line of questioning though.

3) This point is changing the argument. The argument is about whether accidents should be discussed in relation to gun control laws. They should. End of story.

4) You can interpret "the dude"'s intentions however you would like, but at the end of the day, he lied to you. Whether that lie was accidental or purposeful, I can't say. All I can say is that there are massive inaccuracies in his post which severely bias it, presenting a fundamentally flawed interpretation of reality (ie a lie).

As for how much effort that post would take, anyone who knows what they were doing could whip it up in under an hour easy. It isn't some monumental effort. It is a quick google search and some simply addition.

1. Guns are not the reason people want to commit sucide. If you take away the guns their emotions that make them want to end their lives are still there and since most suicides are not done with firearms these people would just find another way to commit suicides. If we take the UK for an example. In 1996/1997 they passed some gun control laws but sucide rate the following years had increased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_Kingdom (you can see the chart when you click on the suicide rates thing under statistics). And Japan si another example of a country with strict gun laws and a high suicide rates. Guns are just one means people use to commit suicide. Take that away people will just find other ways.

2. You claimed that "Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present." and I've never seen evidence of this that's why I asked for a source. The source you provided does not say anything about this.

3. There will always be accidents for a lot of things. That's just people being careless. The primary focus of gun control laws are to prevent violent gun crimes so adding accidents to the equation isnt fair because they will still happen.

4. The guy wanted to show that the issue of gun control is not as big as the media and some politicians make it to be. Yeah some of his evidence was a bit misleading because he said himself that he was not able to find full info and had to use info form past years. But even with more accurate stats you provided earlier the gun problem is not as big as the media makes it out to be,

To read through or even skyrim through most of the info and break it down it still probably would take an hour or two.

1) This has already been addressed. See five-ish posts ago for a rebuttal.

2) Clearly you aren't paying attention then.

3) Bad take.

4) The post is bad. The end.

(If you couldn't tell, I'm done here).



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Sticks and stones, moving goalposts, and dumb queries leading to dumber negation.

When you let people show you who they are, instead of assuming, you should believe them.

Care to take a crack at my next reply for me since you're so in tune with the things I'm saying that I haven't (yet) said?

Lol, I guess you had nothing.  Next topic.  Try to do better in defense of stupidity.  I mean if you are going to defend ever dumb thing Trump does, you better make stronger arguments.  The BS of trying to blame others for Trump incompetence ring very hollow.  Trying to blame Dems for Trump communicating like an idiot really isn't cutting it.  Believing the common people elected Trump because of his lies, poor grammar, spelling and idiotic statements is a truly lol moment.  I am guessing as long as you can find someone else to blame for Trump incompetence, it will always be rainbows and unicorn farts to power his administration forever.

3 strikes in a row? The arm isn't even warmed up yet.

Molecules of freedom, actually.



Republicans support America and care they about Americans, Republicans support Capitalism.
Democrats focus on Anti-American Global elitist agenda aka Global socialism.
I have been educated by Fox News and Alex Jones on Info Wars that give us the real facts.
Americans must re-elect Trump to protect Americans and Keep America Great Again!

Trump is Making America Great Again. He has reduced unemployment rates and businesses are booming in the US and the stock market is reaching new record heights. Mr Trump is man of Strong confidence and the American Economy is stronger than ever!

Last edited by Dark_Lord_2008 - on 22 June 2019