Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

/vomits
Ugh.  LeftyCartoons.  Seriously? Can this wage gap between men/women fucking die already?  PRATT territory now.

[MrBogosity]

I'm sorry Unions nowadays are little more than monopolies. They used to serve the workers, at least until they were turned into cartels by the government, I believe sometime during the great depression. (Am I correct Shane?)

Pretty much. You know how cartels increase their prices? They create shortages. You know how cartelized unions increase wages?

[Skm1091]

Pretty much. You know how cartels increase their prices? They create shortages. You know how cartelized unions increase wages?

Questions. Are there examples of monopolized unions killing off smaller or competing unions?

[BreadGod]

Here are some choice quotes from a gun control advocate.

Stricter gun laws need to be enacted to prevent nutjob gun fondlers from being able to easily obtain guns through lawful measures.

Of course, if I had my way, all guns would be banned.

The comment guns don't kill people is an ignorant statement, after all. If guns do not kill people, why not take guns away from soldiers and just send the men to war without weapons.

Bottom line. More guns=more deaths.

I fail to see how criminals have guns so I need to have one too is a logical course toward ending violence.

In fact, scenario number one: guns are banned, criminals can still get guns while the victims cannot legally obtain them. Criminals shoot victims. Violence.

Scenario number two: everyone can have a gun, criminals still get guns, both the victims and the criminals shoot at each other. Violence.

Where does the violence end, if not in banning guns or ensuring stricter gun laws?

A logical course of action in ending the violence, I believe, is not in allowing the victims to have guns to perpetuate the violence enacted upon them by the criminals. What must be done is to find a way to ensure there is no way criminals can illegally obtain guns, but how to go about doing that is unclear. I am certain a way could be discovered, however.

Something has to make it go away. Guns are a problem, plain and simple. Denying that is erring on the side of ignorance.

Stating that people need guns to defend themselves from criminals who have guns merely perpetuates the problem, because it ensures guns remain within society.

To completely remove guns from everyone, properly doing it so that no guns go underground to be illegally sold, is the only logical course at this point.

Of course, violence is going to persist, but it does not have to persist in the form of guns.

Stating that guns are needed just because the other guy illegally has one is not a valid reason for guns to remain, as far as I am concerned.

Criminals tend to choose guns because it is much easier to kill people with guns than with knives or stones. It also makes the kill impersonal. If there were no guns, I speculate that not many criminals will be too happy about having to use knives or stones to continue killing. In fact, they probably will not even go that route.

Considering most mass shootings were done with legally obtained guns, I'd say banning guns from the law abiding would do more than the NRA would care to admit.

I do not expect the government to get rid of their guns. I may not trust the government concerning many things, but I see no reason why the government cannot have guns. Only nutters think the government will go on a killing spree, killing civilians left and right.

[MrBogosity]

Questions. Are there examples of monopolized unions killing off smaller or competing unions?

Not directly that I'm aware of, but they do it indirectly with regulations, just like they kill off competition for their workers by lobbying for increasing the Minimum Wage.

[Travis Retriever]

Here are some choice quotes from a gun control advocate.

All for the peasants of course, not for their holy government.

[Skm1091]

Here are some choice quotes from a gun control advocate.

And here are my rebuttals. *Rub hands together*

Stricter gun laws need to be enacted to prevent nutjob gun fondlers from being able to easily obtain guns through lawful measures.

Of course, if I had my way, all guns would be banned.

The comment guns don't kill people is an ignorant statement, after all. If guns do not kill people, why not take guns away from soldiers and just send the men to war without weapons.

Oh Yeah that prevented the Happy land Arsonists, or Timothy McVeigh with his fertilizer bomb.

Bottom line. More guns=more deaths.

Then how come the overall homicide rate in the has dropped by half?

I fail to see how criminals have guns so I need to have one too is a logical course toward ending violence.

In fact, scenario number one: guns are banned, criminals can still get guns while the victims cannot legally obtain them. Criminals shoot victims. Violence.

Scenario number two: everyone can have a gun, criminals still get guns, both the victims and the criminals shoot at each other. Violence.

Where does the violence end, if not in banning guns or ensuring stricter gun laws?

A logical course of action in ending the violence, I believe, is not in allowing the victims to have guns to perpetuate the violence enacted upon them by the criminals. What must be done is to find a way to ensure there is no way criminals can illegally obtain guns, but how to go about doing that is unclear. I am certain a way could be discovered, however.

It makes it riskier for criminals. By his argument there should be many shootings at places like shooting ranges, gun shows. But we don't. Same with places with lots of gun control and less gun control. Example El Paso vs Juarez. Juarez have strict gun control their homicide is through the roof, meanwhile El Paso has far more lenient gun laws and their homicide is FRACTIONS of Juarez's.

Something has to make it go away. Guns are a problem, plain and simple. Denying that is erring on the side of ignorance.

Stating that people need guns to defend themselves from criminals who have guns merely perpetuates the problem, because it ensures guns remain within society.

To completely remove guns from everyone, properly doing it so that no guns go underground to be illegally sold, is the only logical course at this point.

Again Our homicide has gone DOWN despite the increase of guns in circulation, increase in ownership, more states adopting concealed carry, Chicago and Washington DC lifting their handgun bans, the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 etc.

Self Defense also outnumbers the crimes. 1.5 million by some stats. Even our most conservative estimate from the National Victimization Survey say that guns are used in self defense 30000-80000 times a year. That still outnumbers the crime (suicides and accidents don't count) which range from 9000-12000.

Do you Mr/Ms/Mrs Idiot think that criminals will just turn in their guns during your "buy back" or should I say steeling by proxy scheme? And you still want the police to have guns? That is Hypocrisy.

Of course, violence is going to persist, but it does not have to persist in the form of guns.

Stating that guns are needed just because the other guy illegally has one is not a valid reason for guns to remain, as far as I am concerned.

Criminals tend to choose guns because it is much easier to kill people with guns than with knives or stones. It also makes the kill impersonal. If there were no guns, I speculate that not many criminals will be too happy about having to use knives or stones to continue killing. In fact, they probably will not even go that route

And guns make it easier to defend yourself as I just proved with my self defense numbers. If that was the case murder rate in the UK should have gone down after their gun control acts but it got progressively WORSE.

Heres a graph of the UK murder rate: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england-full.png

Here is a list of gun control laws passed in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Considering most mass shootings were done with legally obtained guns, I'd say banning guns from the law abiding would do more than the NRA would care to admit.

Kind of irrelevant because our mass shootings are decreasing. According to criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University mass shootings have gone down from 42 during the 1990s and down to 26 during the 2000s.

Done with legal weapons? Tell me if you can get legal hand grenades in Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16161746

I do not expect the government to get rid of their guns. I may not trust the government concerning many things, but I see no reason why the government cannot have guns. Only nutters think the government will go on a killing spree, killing civilians left and right.

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The Iraq Sanctions? Obama's Drone Strikes? RING ANY BELLS?!! These people were talking about someone not in a government they would be considered mass murderer supporters, but since it is someone in their holy government, oh it's perfectly fine. Murderous hypocritical vipers anyone?

[Travis Retriever]

Jesus Christ!  That murder rate is even worse than the US's during alcohol prohibition, or during the peak of the war on drugs!  So much for shchpendrop's crap about the UK having lower murder rates.

[Travis Retriever]

Kind of irrelevant because our mass shootings are decreasing. According to criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University mass shootings have gone down from 42 during the 1990s and down to 26 during the 2000s.

Not only that but also cherry picking--the crimes were also done in Gun Free zones.

[Skm1091]

Jesus Christ!  That murder rate is even worse than the US's during alcohol prohibition, or during the peak of the war on drugs!  So much for shchpendrop's crap about the UK having lower murder rates.

As I said before the UK's rate was even lower prior to gun control.

Another popular argument is Australia, but this argument is flawed because. (Link Bellow)

https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1889.msg18215#msg18215

[Travis Retriever]

@Skm1091:  Ah, thanks.

Back OT:
Something some folks (and I mean vastly desperate people here *cough*Conservaturd former friend *cough*) will do when I bring up a fallacy--say Ad Hominem--they just committed:   "hur! quit shooting latin at me! I dun know what the hell that means."
Um, dude...you're on the fucking internet.  Google that shit.  dictionary.com thefreedictionary.com hell, even fucking wikipedia are but mere keystrokes away.  There really is no excuse for that kind of crap.  It just reeks of someone going out of their way to avoid the obvious--willful ignorance.

It's like someone giving me a Christmas present wrapped in their used toilet paper--I don't even need to open it to know you're not even trying.

[BreadGod]

[spoiler]And here are my rebuttals. *Rub hands together*

Oh Yeah that prevented the Happy land Arsonists, or Timothy McVeigh with his fertilizer bomb.

Then how come the overall homicide rate in the has dropped by half?

It makes it riskier for criminals. By his argument there should be many shootings at places like shooting ranges, gun shows. But we don't. Same with places with lots of gun control and less gun control. Example El Paso vs Juarez. Juarez have strict gun control their homicide is through the roof, meanwhile El Paso has far more lenient gun laws and their homicide is FRACTIONS of Juarez's.

Again Our homicide has gone DOWN despite the increase of guns in circulation, increase in ownership, more states adopting concealed carry, Chicago and Washington DC lifting their handgun bans, the expiration of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004 etc.

Self Defense also outnumbers the crimes. 1.5 million by some stats. Even our most conservative estimate from the National Victimization Survey say that guns are used in self defense 30000-80000 times a year. That still outnumbers the crime (suicides and accidents don't count) which range from 9000-12000.

Do you Mr/Ms/Mrs Idiot think that criminals will just turn in their guns during your "buy back" or should I say steeling by proxy scheme? And you still want the police to have guns? That is Hypocrisy.

And guns make it easier to defend yourself as I just proved with my self defense numbers. If that was the case murder rate in the UK should have gone down after their gun control acts but it got progressively WORSE.

Heres a graph of the UK murder rate: http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/england-full.png

Here is a list of gun control laws passed in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

Kind of irrelevant because our mass shootings are decreasing. According to criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University mass shootings have gone down from 42 during the 1990s and down to 26 during the 2000s.

Done with legal weapons? Tell me if you can get legal hand grenades in Europe: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16161746

Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The Iraq Sanctions? Obama's Drone Strikes? RING ANY BELLS?!! These people were talking about someone not in a government they would be considered mass murderer supporters, but since it is someone in their holy government, oh it's perfectly fine. Murderous hypocritical vipers anyone?[/spoiler]

Silly Skm1091. Don't you know that gun control advocates don't care about pesky little things like "facts" and "evidence"? They're just like creationists. Which is funny because the gun control advocate I was arguing with was an atheist. Seriously, why is it that so many atheists support big government and gun control?

[Travis Retriever]

Silly Skm1091. Don't you know that gun control advocates don't care about pesky little things like "facts" and "evidence"? They're just like creationists. Which is funny because the gun control advocate I was arguing with was an atheist. Seriously, why is it that so many atheists support big government and gun control?

https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=1031.msg9704#msg9704
As Raymond Dundas said (NOT a fail):  "This is what I hate about you new atheists.  You support an authoritarian, paternalistic nanny state and yet you bitch and complain that your rights are being violated because a nativity scene is put up in the city park come Christmas time"

[Ibrahim90]

Silly Skm1091. Don't you know that gun control advocates don't care about pesky little things like "facts" and "evidence"? They're just like creationists. Which is funny because the gun control advocate I was arguing with was an atheist. Seriously, why is it that so many atheists support big government and gun control?

because they merely swapped one deity (or set of deities) for another: The Cult of the omnipotent state.

EDIT: I shortened it, just to be clear what I refer to. original was quoted by BreadGod

[BreadGod]

because they merely swapped one deity (or set of deities) for another. So they in many ways, flat out worship the Government, or at least believe all solutions come with Government control.

Sometimes I wonder if most atheists worship the state in order to fill the void that was created in their hearts after they abandoned religion.