Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

>>Implying those are two different things and not just the same sodding thing with different packaging.

[BlameThe1st]

My response are these images from Lew Rockwell:

[Travis Retriever]

My response are these images from Lew Rockwell:

So much win!

[MrBogosity]

So I foolishly tried to inject some proper skepticism in the comments here:

[yt]mLBiHO4MDsA[/yt]

Once again, statism poisons the mind as much as any religion.

[Travis Retriever]

So I foolishly tried to inject some proper skepticism in the comments here:

[yt]mLBiHO4MDsA[/yt]

Once again, statism poisons the mind as much as any religion.

Yes, because if it's one of our sources saying something that supports our claims--even if it's a source they'd otherwise accept like the CDC, et al--it's biased and invalid, but if it's a source that says something that supports what they think, it's valid.  The actual objective methodology, regression, controls, etc all be damned.  Gods, just like the freakin' creationists.  And people wonder why we call it The Cult of the Omnipotent State.

[Skm1091]

So I foolishly tried to inject some proper skepticism in the comments here:

[yt]mLBiHO4MDsA[/yt]

Once again, statism poisons the mind as much as any religion.

You should see some of the comments to me

[Ibrahim90]

Yes, because if it's one of our sources saying something that supports our claims--even if it's a source they'd otherwise accept like the CDC, et al--it's biased and invalid, but if it's a source that says something that supports what they think, it's valid.  The actual objective methodology, regression, controls, etc all be damned.  Gods, just like the freakin' creationists.  And people wonder why we call it The Cult of the Omnipotent State.

frnakly that is all irrelevent. this whole argument can be summed up as follows:

"our current sringent-ass regulations on guns aren't working, so the solution must be to do more of the same!"

it's like a vicious circle: someone gets popped who is popular, new regulations are in place. the shit still keeps happening, so more are in place. and it just repeats.

[Travis Retriever]

frnakly that is all irrelevent. this whole argument can be summed up as follows:

"our current sringent-ass regulations on guns aren't working, so the solution must be to do more of the same!"

it's like a vicious circle: someone gets popped who is popular, new regulations are in place. the shit still keeps happening, so more are in place. and it just repeats.

Actually, it's even worse than that because of the self detonating nature of the 'argument':
"Let's get rid of guns so people won't kill others with them!"
"How are you gonna do that?"
"By having armed thugs with guns threaten everyone to give up their guns!"
"..."

[R.E.H.W.R.]

Um, when did Obama do this?

[Skm1091]

So I foolishly tried to inject some proper skepticism in the comments here:

[yt]mLBiHO4MDsA[/yt]

Once again, statism poisons the mind as much as any religion.

This guy is one piece of work it's very long so I put it in spoilers to save space

[spoiler]Rusty Shackleford says

+Shane Killian

And let me guess: you have a blog post from an unqualified libertarian anarchist to support your assertions?  I've moved past treating you like an adult, you should really just stop posting.

+skm1091

*citation needed.  Why is it whenever you gun nuts make very specific statistical claims you're always loathe to cite your sources or can't provide credible sources?

This was my response

+Rusty Shackleford Here are my sources.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/03/international-00028/

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

http://www.class.org.au/pdf/IrishCustodyOrder[2].PDF

http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Caribbean-study-en.pdf

And the UNODC homicide stats

Oh and to add to Shanes point of making guns in grass huts

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/south_east_asia/AJ201112270001n

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5066860.stm;

He then responses with this piece of work

+skm1091

Your first source is a blog that cites no original source directly.

The second source doesn't focus on crime, it's a total of 2 pages.  They don't comment on the increase in homicide.  No economic, social, or political changes are commented on, no comment on population changes or any kind of qualitative analysis is provided whatsoever.  This source doesn't support your assertion, it's little more than raw data for your assertion.

Your third source is a posting by a Guns Rights Advocacy group, fail to cite any of their sources and demonstrate a clear conflict of interest.  Their website banner says "We Aim for Shooters Rights".  This is not a credible source.

Your last source is over 200 pages and I don't believe for one fucking second you've read any of this.  If you had you'd have seen this in literally the first paragraph on their section on guns and crime:

"As violence has increased in the Caribbean, so too has the use of firearms.
Increasingly, more powerful weapons are being used, resulting in higher mortality levels."

So out of all of your sources you have one actual study... and it explicitly says "guns are why we have more murders".  They even provide graphs demonstrating their spike in murders and injuries are directly related to firearms.

Lastly the fact that people will commit crime isn't a justification for terminating the police force.  Your argument is essentially "ah, a few people will make guns in straw huts, therefore major firearms manufactories should be allowed unrestricted development rights!"  Lolwut?

I responded to another comment and then he says

I see you blew past my refutation of your "sources" and decided to start pushing the hobby horse of another bullshit argument.  Still no comment on the fact that the only source you posted that was credible and actually had a qualitative analysis on firearms violence actually stated that firearms violence was the primary cause of their increasing homicide rate contrary to the claim you attributed to their article?

That's the danger of citing real sources for you gun nuts.  They don't agree with your conclusions.

I respond with

The first source I cited was a murder stat from UK home office you fucking fool!

I did not quote my second source for entire thing dimwit JUST THE PART ABOUT THE HOMICIDE RATE DOUBLING! you asked me about the stats about the UK homicide rate going up so I fucking gave them to you!

Third you committed a guilt by association fallacy.

The fourth source had a stat on page 10 that showed the increase in murder was just about the increase in overall murder rate. I wasn't quoting the entire thing either. Just because the study presribes a policy opposite of what you desire does not fucking mean there aren't nuggets of data that you can use. 

He then responds with

"The first source I cited was a murder stat from UK home office you fucking fool!"

The first source you cited is a blog containing second hand information without a reference to the original data set.  If the data is accurate from the UK home office then use the original source, shithead.  The blog doesn't even bother to contextualize the data, merely says "this will be good data for discussion!".

"JUST THE PART ABOUT THE HOMICIDE RATE DOUBLING!"

Stats without context are meaningless.  Your second source failed to contextualize this information.  It's not their fault, they weren't attempting to.  You're citing them as a source to make a claim their data doesn't evidence.

"Third you committed a guilt by association fallacy."

Sorry, pal, use a better source.  They have a conflict of interest.

"Just because the study presribes a policy opposite of what you desire does not fucking mean there aren't nuggets of data that you can use. "

So in other words you knowingly quote mined the source.  Douchebag, shithead liar is what you are.

[/spoiler]

So let me get this straight just because it's a blog you get to brush off the information?

I brought the second source up to show that Homicide rate doubling despite the gun control laws. If gun control is supposed to work it should not have gone up at all or gone down.

Conflict of interest. Oh yeah gun control advocates don't have any conflict of interest. Fucking Hypocrite!

I told him about the chart on page 10 and he simply brushed it off. Look at the rate before 1975 and then see what happens after. How damn hard is that?!

[MrBogosity]

Um, when did Obama do this?

It's a word game. He cut the RATE THE DEBT WAS INCREASING in half.

[MrBogosity]

This guy is one piece of work it's very long so I put it in spoilers to save space

I'm continually SMH at these guys.

Cloud Seeker made this out to be a big point: "the weapons wasn't confiscated when the police investigated him when he said he was going to kill a lot of people." I thought it was just a throwaway line, but he came back at me with: "Also why are you ignoring the fact the police didn't confiscated his weapons when they investigated him?"

Using the police to stop people from getting guns is THEIR solution, NOT ours! So how does his point argue against our position? The police--which THEY say we need to depend on to solve this problem--failed to do so. That means that THEIR solution doesn't work!

Geez...

[Travis Retriever]

I'm continually SMH at these guys.

Cloud Seeker made this out to be a big point: "the weapons wasn't confiscated when the police investigated him when he said he was going to kill a lot of people." I thought it was just a throwaway line, but he came back at me with: "Also why are you ignoring the fact the police didn't confiscated his weapons when they investigated him?"

Using the police to stop people from getting guns is THEIR solution, NOT ours! So how does his point argue against our position? The police--which THEY say we need to depend on to solve this problem--failed to do so. That means that THEIR solution doesn't work!

Geez...

I was SMH when I saw him note about background checks, "Well even people with severe mental issues still get guns!" Um...we're against background checks and govco restricting firearms in the first place, while he's for the background checks, etc.  So this is just him admitting his own 'solutions' are failures and ineptly trying to pin them on us.  Good lord man.

"The laws are reactionary.   The area has high rates of violent crime, therefore laws were enacted." --right, because of prior gun control laws.  It's like Harry Browne said, Government doesn't work.  Government gets involved in something, fucks it up, blames the free market and then uses that as (bogus) justification for even MORE control resulting in even MORE fuck ups, lather rinse repeat.

[MrBogosity]

I was SMH when I saw him note about background checks, "Well even people with severe mental issues still get guns!" Um...we're against background checks and govco restricting firearms in the first place, while he's for the background checks, etc.  So this is just him admitting his own 'solutions' are failures and ineptly trying to pin them on us.  Good lord man.

And as I keep pointing out (and they keep ignoring), the Brady Campaign gave California a perfect score on lots of categories, including restrictions on the mentally ill.

[MrBogosity]

I was SMH when I saw him note about background checks, "Well even people with severe mental issues still get guns!" Um...we're against background checks and govco restricting firearms in the first place, while he's for the background checks, etc.  So this is just him admitting his own 'solutions' are failures and ineptly trying to pin them on us.  Good lord man.

"The laws are reactionary.   The area has high rates of violent crime, therefore laws were enacted." --right, because of prior gun control laws.  It's like Harry Browne said, Government doesn't work.  Government gets involved in something, fucks it up, blames the free market and then uses that as (bogus) justification for even MORE control resulting in even MORE fuck ups, lather rinse repeat.

And now Rusty Shackleton: "I swear every time you cite a source I have to facepalm.  It's like you have absolutely no idea how to cite or vet a source.  You post an article published by an academic journal hidden behind a paywall and then claim "THIS IS THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE JOURNAL!".  No... moron.  It's the stance of the two authors of the unreadable paper that you only read the abstract of that made it past the editorial board.

"Jesus, you gun nuts are fucking IDIOTS."

When a) being behind a paywall has NOTHING to do with the validity of the study, b) citing a source IN a journal is NOT the same as saying it's their "official stance" (which I clearly never said), and c) two of the three studies WEREN'T BEHIND PAYWALLS! You could download them just by clicking the link!

Geez...