go with your strengths... avoid the actual content related posts. Be the troll you are!
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
go with your strengths... avoid the actual content related posts. Be the troll you are!
sorry lil' lapdog buddy... you're still on (selective) ignore! When I just know you're posting your typical crapola and nothingless, I'll select the 'view post' option on a particular post of yours. But see... your aim has been realized! Your purposeful intent to disrupt has been reached... your perpetual reach for confrontation is a go! Well done, lapper... well done! :mrgreen:
taxi, what's pathetic is your lame-azzed drive-by's... they've totally gone farther downhill than even I could have imagined! :mrgreen:
guys, guys..... do any of youse have anything subject matter related to post?
In such need for attention that he has to broadcast to everyone when he puts someone on ignore...
He will then mention that he can't see my post because I'm on ignore!
He will then mention that he can't see my post because I'm on ignore!
Waldo....do you ever think for yourself?
The Mother Jones estimate of gun violence costs is so absolutely ludicrous.........when you start adding up lost revenues from the career earnings of gun violence victims, you've stepped into the Realm of Idiots.
!. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, the vast majority of which would have happened anyway.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that any feasible gun control would lower the number of murders, as there are many ways to kill.
3. A very significant number of gun casualties are criminals, who do not contribute to society, but detract from society....
4. Because one person gets killed does mean that death costs society all his lifetime earnings, as someone else will do his job, etc.
THINK Man, don't just regurgitate idiocy.
The Mother Jones estimate of gun violence costs is so absolutely ludicrous.........when you start adding up lost revenues from the career earnings of gun violence victims, you've stepped into the Realm of Idiots.
!. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides, the vast majority of which would have happened anyway.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that any feasible gun control would lower the number of murders, as there are many ways to kill.
3. A very significant number of gun casualties are criminals, who do not contribute to society, but detract from society....
4. Because one person gets killed does mean that death costs society all his lifetime earnings, as someone else will do his job, etc.
THINK Man, don't just regurgitate idiocy.
apparently not! Apparently you don't have anything subject matter related to post! :mrgreen: Nor can you/read comprehend the reference to "selective ignore"... selectively opening up your posts with the per post 'view post' option... just when I know you've got a real gem waiting! And you were the guy to first mention "posting ignore" in this latest go-around! Lapdogs like you gonna do what lapdogs do, hey!guys, guys..... do any of youse have anything subject matter related to post?
says YOU... the King of C&P from all your gun-advocacy references! :mrgreen: You're nothing but a walking, talking parrot as you lay down your talking point best! This isn't the first time you've suggested/implied your originality in the face of others, as you say, "regurgitating idiocy"!!! How selectively self-serving of you!
interesting perspective you've taken, particularly in the related context of "what's a person's life worth"? From that's victim person's perspective it is "personal lost wages"... it is "personal lost productivity". Those indirect costs are, if not to society at large as you imply, most certainly to the impacted victim and family members.
your trolling is a sign of a troll!
Here's the difference between you and I.
I came up with a thesis........or if you will, an experiment. Find two closely similar populations, divided only by a political boundary, and differing only in the number of guns, the type of guns, the ease of accessing guns, and the legality of carrying guns. Compare the murder rates in these political entities with a view to finding out if guns actually do cause murder.
Use evidence to come to your conclusions. Do not use statistical evidence from either pro or anti gun sites, use neutral evidence (Brady ratings are not statistical evidence)
Reach your conclusions, present and defend them.
That is me.
You go off and find the most biased source you can, and quote it verbatim.
That is you.
Therefore the plea to you to
THINK MAN
Don't just regurgitate biased BS.
Once again, the productivity of an individual is lost when they die, but the framework that produced the opportunity for them to produce does not..................and the gap in that framework comes to be filled by another individual.
I am not claiming there is no cost to society, but to claim the loss to society is the equal of a person's lifetime productivity is simply ludicrous.
What trolling? You really don't understand polite debate, do you?
Waldo, you problem is you have become the Micheal Bolton of this website. Ie you are trying to win a grammy with every lyric of your song.
Want some advice? Stop desparately trying to out do everyone. Calm down, slow down, keep you ego in check, keep your opinions sincere.
And above all stop thinking that you can talk your way out of any situation.
Want some advice? Stop desparately trying to out do everyone. Calm down, slow down, keep you ego in check, keep your opinions sincere.
And above all stop thinking that you can talk your way out of any situation.
what is YOU, is you purposely ignoring gun related violence, gun related murders and gun related deaths in favour of your isolation to the broader, at large, generalized murder rates. And you do it all while claiming to align with gun ownership demographics... and you do it all by drawing association and correlation to Brady state rankings based on, in part, gun violence statistics. THAT'S YOU! What's also you is ignoring the direct challenge to a calculation you presumed to make (but never provided the details on)... THAT'S YOU! What is also YOU, is you continue to claim you've defended your, as you called it "thesis"! :mrgreen:
pfffft! Your self-indulgence is noted! It's a shame you resort to labeling challenge to your posts an, as you say, "a desperate attempt to try to outdo everyone... outdo you!" :mrgreen: Apparently, when you've challenged and have had your weak trolling efforts exposed for the nothingness that they are, your self-seeking comfort reach is to label your challenger as "excited, enthusiastic, arrogant and insincere". Damn, I really touched a nerve with you, hey!
Now, I am explaining this as politely and as carefully as I can:
If you believe that ease of access and lack of control of guns causes violence and involuntary death, then you must believe that strict control of guns would reduce violence and involuntary death.
That is a fairly simple concept. Right?
So....to support your thesis, you must show that strict gun control reduces violence and involuntary death. If the control of guns simply means killers turn to other methods with similar results, no lives have been saved.
Another simple concept Right?
The way to do that is to compare two closely similar populations, divided only by a political boundary, and differing only in the number of guns, the type of guns, the ease of accessing guns, and the legality of carrying guns. Compare the murder rates in these political entities with a view to finding out if guns actually do cause murder.
Simple concept Right?
Now, carefully explain, please, where you think my logic has gone off the rails.
you're assuming outright death in relation to those victim (and victim family) attached lost wages, lost productivity. And you're also mistakenly associating that loss in victim productivity directly back to the job level/employer. Those lost wages figures are based on typical wrongful injury (and death) case awards... and yes... a victim's personal societal productivity is/may be lost, partially or in whole, relative to pre-injury levels. In any case, you've chosen to isolate on but one of many, many indirect costs put forward.
that reply wasn't directed at you - it was directed at the member who keeps coming back and directly stating/implying I'm a troll... as I said, "for apparently challenging and exposing his own failed troll attempts".
I'm sorry, but IMHO connecting "lost productivity" to typical wrongful injury (and death) case awards simply proves the figures are ludicrous, an invention, based on the most flimsy of theories....
Yes, I am arguing this, as it is a major part of the cost analysis...
I presented other arguments (2/3 of the deaths are suicides, the vast majority of which would happen anyway), but this was the one challenged.
Fair enough.
Ah, yes. Invited to a genuine debate, you wimped out with declarations of disinterest in American gun culture. Yet here you are, citing American statistics. Whatever happened to that Canada-centric view you espoused when invited to real debate instead of a slagging match?
you're not reading/comprehending. Again, you can't presume to speak to gun related violence, gun related murders and gun related deaths... unless you speak directly to the related statistics. You refuse to do so. All those related statistics are available and have been presented... you refuse to accept them. Of course you do! So, instead... you isolate on murder rates at large without direct consideration to guns within those murders, within those rates. You also refuse to accept... to even acknowledge the references brought forward that speak to contributory reasons why gun related murders have been reduced in recent years... shifting into gun violence impacts instead of outright deaths. In that regard I put forward several reputable sources that you've simply chosen to dismiss because the references put forward don't align with your pro-gun advocacy talking points.
:mrgreen: nice!... but you should re-read my post you quoted. I most certainly have an interest in the "American gun culture"... in relation to what I stated. As for "Canadian centric", I most recently have been responding directly to references to U.S. CDC data. As for the latest reference to, "The true cost of U.S. gun violence"... the article is presented exactly in that vein... particularly in relation to this and other threads preponderance of U.S. based/focused pro-gun advocacy posted references.
this is messin' with hockey TV coverage - CUlater!
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
Study shows gun violence surged in Missouri after repeal of gun control laws
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts
Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control - The Washington Post
Only other comment......Swimming pool drownings in Quebec are way, way down since implementation of stricter laws. Good laws do work!!
Study shows gun violence surged in Missouri after repeal of gun control laws
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – Gun Law Information Experts
Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control - The Washington Post
Only other comment......Swimming pool drownings in Quebec are way, way down since implementation of stricter laws. Good laws do work!!
Most of the statistics on guns mean very little. Murderers are going to commit murder and suicides are going to commit suicides albeit by a different venue.