Les and I have different styles, obviously. I certainly appreciate his jumping to my defense — my own reaction to being so summarily labeled and cubbyholed is simply to lightly mock it through this post.
At least I hope I won’t have friends commenting saying that, well, actually they pegged it.
It’s just ‘cuz yer an old fart now and can’t stand anyone’s opinions but your own. And, of course, now with fewer brain cells to form coherent logic…well…
That sure is some quality paranoia there, perhaps we can bottle it! ^.^
~puts on the hat of snarkiness~
*“Another lefty, railing on a topic he does not understand.”
Well, I guess one could always assume that only righties were always railing on topics that they completely understood, but that would be a snark too far.
*Clearly the type that there are high odds against “any comments that contradict his point of view actually getting past moderation.”
Bless your heart, what a highly developed martyr complex you have.
*Someone who replies with “smarmy fact-free ‘rebuttal’”s.
Smarmy….no….*I’m* smarmy! Or am I the devistating quip, I forget…
*A guy who won’t let “facts get in the way of his emotion-driven opinion that makes him feel good and superior about himself.”
Bless your heart, nothing like a little bit of dehumanization of the subject, with a dollup of feminization (Ad feminam) on top. Well, done, well done indeed, because we all know that women, being all emotional and everything can’t *possibly* form a cogent arguement, right?
*The sort to block “any comments that are anything more than a very mild disagreement” from my blog.
Projection? Perhaps? Yes, no?
A person who uses “convoluted logic to explain away anyone elses conclusions.”
Pshaw…
If your conclusions were that strong, how could they possibly be explained away?
A few more comments like those and we will have to strip Dave of one of his stars. Will **Dave have as many loyal readers, or will the reduction in status drive us away? Stay tuned!
Strip ***Dave of one of his stars? Good luck with that. Might as well try to change the gravitational constant.
There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate. I have to part company with the NRA mindset that nobody should be restricted from owning a gun. One of the writers on that blog used the analogy of trusting other drivers on the road. But a car is not primarily a weapon, and people lose their drivers’ licenses all the time – often after someone has died. A gun is primarily a weapon – with a long reach – so the character of a person carrying one is of considerable public interest.
I grew up in a house full of guns; my dad was a lifetime NRA member. Our operating assumption was that guns are good for protection and public safety. But in the Gifford incident an armed bystander came upon the scene after another bystander had wrestled the gun away from the shooter. Something to think about.
There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate.
Please present actual evidence of said “lower murder rate” in countries with strict gun control.
If you’re going to start making claims it’d be best to actually back them up.
Murder rates per-capita by country.
US murder rate is about three times that of Canada, three times that of England, more than four times that of Denmark, and ten times that of Japan. But since you’re a gun advocate you probably already knew that.
“Only 3x more than England and Canada? Even with ~5x and ~10x the population respectively (UK 61.2m, Hockeyland 33.3m, US 312m).”
Stats such as this are quoted per so many population – usuallu 100,000, though this link gives per 1000. It is a PROPORTION, not an ABSOLUTE.
Effectively for every 1 million people, in the UK 14 are murdered per year, compared to 42 in the US. Also in the UK murders from ALL causes are less than US murders from handguns alone.
@Robb & @mike: your arguements are stronger when you don’t wilfully misread the data presented. Care to present contradicting data? Great! Let’s talk about source validity, etc. But when you simply dismiss a per capita comparison by wilfully ignoring its relevance, that’s dirty debating, and not a good way to represent your side of the arguement.
But when you simply dismiss a per capita comparison by wilfully ignoring its relevance, that’s dirty debating, and not a good way to represent your side of the arguement
Speaking of dirty debating, it would help if you’d actually read my post before responding. If you had you’d see that I did not do what you’re accusing me of doing. I in fact did compare the per capita rate.
Reading before you comment keeps you from looking like a fool. I suggest you try it.
It appears to me that Mike asked about murder rates, George provided that, and Mike seemed to think he missed the point (which is the point I lose Mike at). But Mike did reference rates, not numbers. (Robb was the one in error there.)
How did you get lost Dave? I provided evidence disproving George’s erroneous statement above. His statement was false, It needed to be corrected, lest anyone think that there’s truth to what he was saying about gun control being an effective means of lowering murder rates.
Countries that have enacted “sensible gun regulations” (I.E. far more strict than the U.S.) DO NOT have a lower murder rate than the U.S. As I pointed out in my post, we are #24 and there are a bunch of nations on that list which have the kind of strict gun control that would make anti-gun advocates here absolutely giddy. Guess what? Their murder rates are far above ours.
See, Mike, I was ignoring your post for two reasons: you compared countries of very different per-capita income and political stability, and you thought that I blamed Sarah Palin for the shootings. Both wrong. But you had to go and embarrass yourself by drawing attention to it again. Comparing Jamaica and Japan? Really? And Sarah is part of a rhetorical style writ large by Fox News. She has a lot of company; I just found it interesting that she felt the need to scrub her website.
And no, there isn’t an equal amount of violent rhetoric between left and right. When Democratic leaders and pundits start filling up gun shows, and sporting “cold dead hands” bumper stickers all over the place, and fantasizing about killing people and showing up armed at political events, and when we have to scrub our websites after a shooting tragedy, call me. Otherwise, there is a substantive difference in style and emphasis and you’ll just have to live with that.
To think that a crazy person wasn’t influenced by all that violent rhetoric is wrong, too. otherwise why would politicians ever make speeches, if not to wield influence? Arizona is one long wash of rhetoric about immigrants, and about evil commie leftie socialists and so forth. That the shooter is apparently a loon gives some plausible deniability, but he did manage to pick a target who is a recipient of a lot of threats.
Including some, apparently, from major conservative political figures. As Jon Stewart said, we should try to at least make our crazies stand out.
I’m not wasting any more time on you, but perhaps you can use your time more productively oiling your Sig P6.
Shall I paste the comments from your podcast co-host? I think you’ll find that attitude goes a long way on every side of the spectrum.
Les and I have different styles, obviously. I certainly appreciate his jumping to my defense — my own reaction to being so summarily labeled and cubbyholed is simply to lightly mock it through this post.
At least I hope I won’t have friends commenting saying that, well, actually they pegged it.
Look on the bright side, ***Dave. Those are still nicer comments about you than some that I’ve gotten over the years. 😉
Just responding to you in the fashion you’re most accustomed to, Robb. Wouldn’t want to tax you with anything more than that.
It’s just ‘cuz yer an old fart now and can’t stand anyone’s opinions but your own. And, of course, now with fewer brain cells to form coherent logic…well…
It’s ok, regular readers understand.
That sure is some quality paranoia there, perhaps we can bottle it! ^.^
~puts on the hat of snarkiness~
Well, I guess one could always assume that only righties were always railing on topics that they completely understood, but that would be a snark too far.
Bless your heart, what a highly developed martyr complex you have.
Smarmy….no….*I’m* smarmy! Or am I the devistating quip, I forget…
Bless your heart, nothing like a little bit of dehumanization of the subject, with a dollup of feminization (Ad feminam) on top. Well, done, well done indeed, because we all know that women, being all emotional and everything can’t *possibly* form a cogent arguement, right?
Projection? Perhaps? Yes, no?
Pshaw…
If your conclusions were that strong, how could they possibly be explained away?
@Les:
Well that’s because you’re Stupid. And Evil. And, of course, a Bastard.
A few more comments like those and we will have to strip Dave of one of his stars. Will **Dave have as many loyal readers, or will the reduction in status drive us away? Stay tuned!
@Dave But of course.
Strip ***Dave of one of his stars? Good luck with that. Might as well try to change the gravitational constant.
There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate. I have to part company with the NRA mindset that nobody should be restricted from owning a gun. One of the writers on that blog used the analogy of trusting other drivers on the road. But a car is not primarily a weapon, and people lose their drivers’ licenses all the time – often after someone has died. A gun is primarily a weapon – with a long reach – so the character of a person carrying one is of considerable public interest.
I grew up in a house full of guns; my dad was a lifetime NRA member. Our operating assumption was that guns are good for protection and public safety. But in the Gifford incident an armed bystander came upon the scene after another bystander had wrestled the gun away from the shooter. Something to think about.
*WE* still love ya ***Dave!
@George: Well said.
Thanks. I will be maintaining a three-star rating for the time being, it seems.
@George: What Arty said.
There are lots of countries with sensible (“Crazy? Police record? No gun for you”) gun regulations. People there still own guns, and they are also present in organized crime. But individual violent jerks or crazies have a harder time getting them, and the result is a much lower murder rate.
Please present actual evidence of said “lower murder rate” in countries with strict gun control.
If you’re going to start making claims it’d be best to actually back them up.
Murder rates per-capita by country.
US murder rate is about three times that of Canada, three times that of England, more than four times that of Denmark, and ten times that of Japan. But since you’re a gun advocate you probably already knew that.
George, I suggest you go read my post.
Only 3x more than England and Canada? Even with ~5x and ~10x the population respectively (UK 61.2m, Hockeyland 33.3m, US 312m).
Huh.
@ Mike – I did read your post.
@ Robb – murder rate. As in how many per.
Stats such as this are quoted per so many population – usuallu 100,000, though this link gives per 1000. It is a PROPORTION, not an ABSOLUTE.
Effectively for every 1 million people, in the UK 14 are murdered per year, compared to 42 in the US. Also in the UK murders from ALL causes are less than US murders from handguns alone.
@Robb & @mike: your arguements are stronger when you don’t wilfully misread the data presented. Care to present contradicting data? Great! Let’s talk about source validity, etc. But when you simply dismiss a per capita comparison by wilfully ignoring its relevance, that’s dirty debating, and not a good way to represent your side of the arguement.
Speaking of dirty debating, it would help if you’d actually read my post before responding. If you had you’d see that I did not do what you’re accusing me of doing. I in fact did compare the per capita rate.
Reading before you comment keeps you from looking like a fool. I suggest you try it.
It appears to me that Mike asked about murder rates, George provided that, and Mike seemed to think he missed the point (which is the point I lose Mike at). But Mike did reference rates, not numbers. (Robb was the one in error there.)
How did you get lost Dave? I provided evidence disproving George’s erroneous statement above. His statement was false, It needed to be corrected, lest anyone think that there’s truth to what he was saying about gun control being an effective means of lowering murder rates.
Countries that have enacted “sensible gun regulations” (I.E. far more strict than the U.S.) DO NOT have a lower murder rate than the U.S. As I pointed out in my post, we are #24 and there are a bunch of nations on that list which have the kind of strict gun control that would make anti-gun advocates here absolutely giddy. Guess what? Their murder rates are far above ours.
See, Mike, I was ignoring your post for two reasons: you compared countries of very different per-capita income and political stability, and you thought that I blamed Sarah Palin for the shootings. Both wrong. But you had to go and embarrass yourself by drawing attention to it again. Comparing Jamaica and Japan? Really? And Sarah is part of a rhetorical style writ large by Fox News. She has a lot of company; I just found it interesting that she felt the need to scrub her website.
And no, there isn’t an equal amount of violent rhetoric between left and right. When Democratic leaders and pundits start filling up gun shows, and sporting “cold dead hands” bumper stickers all over the place, and fantasizing about killing people and showing up armed at political events, and when we have to scrub our websites after a shooting tragedy, call me. Otherwise, there is a substantive difference in style and emphasis and you’ll just have to live with that.
To think that a crazy person wasn’t influenced by all that violent rhetoric is wrong, too. otherwise why would politicians ever make speeches, if not to wield influence? Arizona is one long wash of rhetoric about immigrants, and about evil commie leftie socialists and so forth. That the shooter is apparently a loon gives some plausible deniability, but he did manage to pick a target who is a recipient of a lot of threats.
Including some, apparently, from major conservative political figures. As Jon Stewart said, we should try to at least make our crazies stand out.
I’m not wasting any more time on you, but perhaps you can use your time more productively oiling your Sig P6.