Gun Control is ridiculous

[Ranb]

It isn't a question of character judgments. It's a question of how you determine which persons carry a gun or not......Clearly, there is no valid reason to carry a gun to defend yourself from a robber.

The article says, “No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery.” Why do you say, “Clearly, they don't need it to "protect" themselves.” I fail to see how you can confuse the words victim and convicted. Do you understand that some people are robbers and that others may wish to legally carry a firearm to protect themselves from those robbers? A yes or no answer works for this question.

If you want to fear a person because they are, or might be armed, then it is your choice. I am going to take the much more rational route and base my decisions upon how they act.

Are you saying that a claim of self-defense with a firearm is as incredulous as UFO abduction? Firearms and their use for personal defense are common and no rational person should dispute this.

Ranb

 

[skeptifem]

No, you can eat fatty foods. Your statement proves that you clearly haven't done any research into this. If you had, you would know that they are banning high trans fat.

gee, if they were banning it i dont know why the fda decided to clearly label the amount of trans fat in any given food so the consumer can choose. but of course, youve done your research, right? trans fat is being banned by some cities IN RESTERAUNTS because many places dont give you nutritional facts, and its hardly a nation wide move. the other bannings of trans fats have been BY COMPANIES banning trans fat from their own products (starbucks is one example).

 

[shanek]

The article says, “No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery.” Why do you say, “Clearly, they don't need it to "protect" themselves.” I fail to see how you can confuse the words victim and convicted. Do you understand that some people are robbers and that others may wish to legally carry a firearm to protect themselves from those robbers?

While you're at it, ask him if someone who gets a gun with the intention to rob is or is not less likely to get a permit for said gun.

 

[CFLarsen]

Kleck's data, which Claus is perfectly familiar with, had many safeguards in place to weed out people who were lying or misremembering things.

Bull.

You have to remember, you're talking to someone who, as he himself said, would (attempt to)kill even an armed air marshal on an airplane.

That's a lie, and you know it.

The article says, “No Minnesota permit holder has ever been convicted of robbery.” Why do you say, “Clearly, they don't need it to "protect" themselves.” I fail to see how you can confuse the words victim and convicted.

How many times did a carrying person use his gun? Hm? Not much use for carrying a gun, hm?

Do you understand that some people are robbers and that others may wish to legally carry a firearm to protect themselves from those robbers? A yes or no answer works for this question.

Of course I understand. Do you understand that law-abiding citizens can turn criminals?

If you want to fear a person because they are, or might be armed, then it is your choice. I am going to take the much more rational route and base my decisions upon how they act.

That's the problem: How do you know how they act? You face someone mad, and you're in trouble. You face someone mad with a gun, and you're in a lot of trouble.

Are you saying that a claim of self-defense with a firearm is as incredulous as UFO abduction? Firearms and their use for personal defense are common and no rational person should dispute this.

I'm saying that Kleck & Lott's numbers are more incredulous than Mack's UFO abduction numbers. Mack's respondents imagined what had happened. Kleck & Lott's respondents imagined what would have happened.

Their number of "defensive gun uses" are based on what people thought would have happened. Accept their numbers, and you accept that precognition exists.

While you're at it, ask him if someone who gets a gun with the intention to rob is or is not less likely to get a permit for said gun.

I am right here, shanek. If you want to ask me something, ask me. Don't debate via stooges, just because you are too afraid to debate with me directly.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Originally Posted by shanek

You have to remember, you're talking to someone who, as he himself said, would (attempt to)kill even an armed air marshal on an airplane

That's a lie, and you know it.

So people can decide for themselves if Shanek is lying or not...

http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=406590&postcount=1

 

[CFLarsen]

So people can decide for themselves if Shanek is lying or not...

http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=406590&postcount=1

Do I know it's an air marshal, Harry? Just yes or no.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Your going to kill the Sky Marshalls?

I have to. How do I know it is a Sky Marshal? I got less than 5 minutes to decide.

So there is Claus responding to the question "Your going to kill the sky marshals" with "I have to." yet he accuses Shanek of lying for saying this:

Originally Posted by shanek

You have to remember, you're talking to someone who, as he himself said, would (attempt to)kill even an armed air marshal on an airplane

Again, I will let people decide for themselves if any part of shanek's quote is a lie.

 

[CFLarsen]

So there is Claus responding to the question "Your going to kill the sky marshals" with "I have to." yet he accuses Shanek of lying for saying this:

Originally Posted by shanek [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]






Again, I will let people decide for themselves if any part of shanek's quote is a lie.

Do I know it's an air marshal, Harry? Just yes or no.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Do I know it's an air marshal, Harry? Just yes or no.

How many times do you intend to repeat an irrelevant question?

You said you would "have to" when asked if you were going to kill the sky marshals. So which part of shanek's quote is a lie?

You're the one who started that ridiculous thread years ago. When someone brings up what you said in it don't cover your embarassment by saying they are lying.

 

[CFLarsen]

How many times do you intend to repeat an irrelevant question?

You said you would "have to" when asked if you were going to kill the sky marshals. So which part of shanek's quote is a lie?

You're the one who started that ridiculous thread years ago. When someone brings up what you said in it don't cover your embarassment by saying they are lying.

The question is very relevant: If I don't know that it is a sky marshal, then I couldn't have wanted to kill a sky marshal, could I?

I don't know if it's a sky marshal - and you don't, either. That's the whole point. If I did, then he is there for a legitimate purpose. But we don't know that.

You already know this, because I have told you in a PM, when you brought it up earlier. Then, you could have simply repeated other people's claims without checking. In which case you did not apply critical thinking.

But that you repeat the story despite knowing it is false makes you a liar. Plain and simple.

Now, you must have your reasons for doing this. Would you mind telling me why? Is it something I have done to you?

 

[Thanz]

The question is very relevant: If I don't know that it is a sky marshal, then I couldn't have wanted to kill a sky marshal, could I?

I don't know if it's a sky marshal - and you don't, either. That's the whole point. If I did, then he is there for a legitimate purpose. But we don't know that.

It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum that if a person has a gun on a plane, it is far more likely than not that the person has a legitimate reason for having that gun. And it has also been pointed out to you that if a person has a gun on a plane for a legitimate reason, the flight crew is informed of it. The most rational course of action upon seeing a gun on a plane is to inform the flight crew. Yet you still want to unleash your Danish fists of fury.

 

[CFLarsen]

It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum that if a person has a gun on a plane, it is far more likely than not that the person has a legitimate reason for having that gun. And it has also been pointed out to you that if a person has a gun on a plane for a legitimate reason, the flight crew is informed of it. The most rational course of action upon seeing a gun on a plane is to inform the flight crew. Yet you still want to unleash your Danish fists of fury.

We don't know how "far more likely" it is. You may say it is, but you are then changing the premise of the scenario.

You can also argue that there is time, but again, you are changing the premise of the scenario.

In either case, you are blaming me for arguing something I never argued.

And, if you could save your xenophobic comments for your own living room, I'm sure we are all the better off.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I don't know if it's a sky marshal - and you don't, either. That's the whole point. If I did, then he is there for a legitimate purpose. But we don't know that.

So your solution is to kill the person, no questions asked, on the spot, and I'm the one not applying critical thinking?

Think about that...killing someone in the off-chance (a very small chance since no one has hijacked a plane with a gun in the US in years...not even 9/11... and there are 72,000 people authorized to carry guns on planes) that they are a terrorist. After you kill someone and find out you're mistaken you just can't say "oops" and make it all better.

Again, shanek was restating what you said. So if you want to point fingers and accuse people of lying do it to a mirror.

 

[CFLarsen]

So your solution is to kill the person, no questions asked, on the spot, and I'm the one not applying critical thinking?

Think about that...killing someone in the off-chance (a very small chance since no one has hijacked a plane with a gun in the US in years...not even 9/11... and there are 72,000 people authorized to carry guns on planes) that they are a terrorist. After you kill someone and find out you're mistaken you just can't say "oops" and make it all better.

After 9-11, I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of relying on people not going nuts onboard planes. That's why we have increasingly more security at airports today.

What 72,000 people are you talking about? The number of sky marshals is secret.

Again, shanek was restating what you said. So if you want to point fingers and accuse people of lying do it to a mirror.

No, shanek was not "restating" what I said. Nowhere did I say I wanted to kill a sky marshal.

It's that small omission that makes the story. Knowingly omitting it is flat-out lying.

 

[Thanz]

We don't know how "far more likely" it is. You may say it is, but you are then changing the premise of the scenario.

Not changing the scenario in the slightest. We certainly know that it is far more likely, and here is how we know: in the past 10 years, there have been no hijackings using firearms that I am aware of. None. If you know of any, I'll be glad to change my numbers. There are, however, thousands of flights every day. We also know that there are procedures in place that allow law enforcement officers onto planes with firearms. If only 5 flights each day have a sky marshall or FBI agent or other officer with a firearm (I'd say that is a low estimate) that is 18,250 flights in those 10 years with a legitimate firearm aboard vs. 0 illegitimate. That is "far more likely", and those are conservative numbers.

You can also argue that there is time, but again, you are changing the premise of the scenario.

No. The premise of the scenario is that you see a man with a gun on a plane. No other threatening moves or other indicia of terrorist activity. Your assumption is that there is no time. I challenge your assumption, and you haven't backed it up with anything other than "we don't know if there is time". Not good enough to attack and kill someone, given the odds that it is legit, and given that there is a much preferred much more rational option: tell the flight crew.

And, if you could save your xenophobic comments for your own living room, I'm sure we are all the better off.

Xenophobic? Come on. Step down off that high horse before you fall and break something. I just like the way "Danish fists of fury" sounds.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not changing the scenario in the slightest. We certainly know that it is far more likely, and here is how we know: in the past 10 years, there have been no hijackings using firearms that I am aware of. None. If you know of any, I'll be glad to change my numbers. There are, however, thousands of flights every day. We also know that there are procedures in place that allow law enforcement officers onto planes with firearms. If only 5 flights each day have a sky marshall or FBI agent or other officer with a firearm (I'd say that is a low estimate) that is 18,250 flights in those 10 years with a legitimate firearm aboard vs. 0 illegitimate. That is "far more likely", and those are conservative numbers.


No. The premise of the scenario is that you see a man with a gun on a plane. No other threatening moves or other indicia of terrorist activity. Your assumption is that there is no time. I challenge your assumption, and you haven't backed it up with anything other than "we don't know if there is time". Not good enough to attack and kill someone, given the odds that it is legit, and given that there is a much preferred much more rational option: tell the flight crew.

I'm sorry, but you are changing the premises of the scenario. You are therefore you are blaming me for arguing something I never argued.

Xenophobic? Come on. Step down off that high horse before you fall and break something. I just like the way "Danish fists of fury" sounds.

By that logic, you can also call black people the n-word because you "like the way it sounds".

 

[Thanz]

I'm sorry, but you are changing the premises of the scenario. You are therefore you are blaming me for arguing something I never argued.

What premise have I changed, specifically?

By that logic, you can also call black people the n-word because you "like the way it sounds".

The "n-word" is an inherently offensive term. Is Danish an offensive term? Is there some other term I should use to describe someone from Denmark? IF so, I will change it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

What 72,000 people are you talking about? The number of sky marshals is secret.

I said there were 72,000 people (not sky marshals) authorized to carry guns on planes. But anyway, I got that number wrong. It's 73,000.

"There are now 73,000 federal employees who are allowed to carry firearms onto commercial flights,"

from the WSJ editorial page:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=95001374

For their safety, and yours, I hope they never get seated by you on a plane.

 

[CFLarsen]

What premise have I changed, specifically?

We don't know how "far more likely" it is. Your numbers are based on speculation. E.g., you have no hard figures on how many air marshals there are.

After 9-11, we cannot rely on there being enough time to contact the crew. It took a few moments for the 9-11 hijackers to gain control of the planes.

You are therefore changing the premise of the scenario.

The "n-word" is an inherently offensive term.

It depends on the context. Blacks use the word about each other.

Is Danish an offensive term? Is there some other term I should use to describe someone from Denmark? IF so, I will change it.

You clearly didn't use "Danish" in a positive way. Therefore, it is xenophobic.

Save that rhetoric for your own company, please.

 

[HarryKeogh]

It depends on the context. Blacks use the word about each other.

Define "black".