kallend 2,027 #76 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge Strawman! Zero error is unattainable. Less error than we have right now can be attained when obstructionists, who think a few hundred murders a year are acceptable so they can play unhindered, get out of the way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #77 February 20, 2012 it's your strawman zero alpha vs zero beta arguments are just pointless merry go rounds - it's clear neither of you are advocating anything other than trying to out last the other at least it used to be entertaining, lately, it's just sad what additional safeguards to you want? how much will they cost the law abiding in terms of real time, and dollars? do you really think the current rules are being followed? "MORE!!" is not a solution. It's a non-productive complaint. Your airplane should be grounded, someone died once in an airplane crash. Can't we just require planes to be build with nice safe plate steel instead of that dangerous aluminum? why is it a matter of law instead of culture? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #78 February 20, 2012 Quoteit's your strawman zero alpha vs zero beta arguments are just pointless merry go rounds NOT. Where have I ever claimed that ZERO is attainable?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #79 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteit's your strawman zero alpha vs zero beta arguments are just pointless merry go rounds NOT. Where have I ever claimed that ZERO is attainable? you don't state zero is attainable, however, your counter argument is one that implies a goal of zero - and since it's unattainable by definition, then it means you are advocating for something impossibly restrictive every time you note "what about (single example) nutjob? why didn't the system catch him ahead of time?" at a minimum, it's equivalent to arguing agains inferences from a pro-gun to mean deletion of all laws neither of you is advocating zero error - but you guys are treating the other like that what he's doing and, I still contend that "MORE" isn't a position, just an unactionable statement of dissatisfaction strawman vs strawman - pointless ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #80 February 20, 2012 gotta go - hope you got to the DZ this weekend. I was stuck shopping for PT stuff for the wife for her post knee surgery exercises... and today, we're off, but weather is now rolling in..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge Strawman! Zero error is unattainable. Less error than we have right now can be attained when obstructionists like mnealtx, who think a few hundred murders a year are acceptable so he can play unhindered, get out of the way. That is an absolutely VILE personal attack and a lie.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 5 #82 February 20, 2012 BAN CHOCOLATE MILK! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteTake guns away John, here is a serious question; who has ever tried to take your guns away? I own 3 guns, two pistols and a shotgun and not once in my life has anyone tried to take them away from me. I remember in the 92 election I was told that Bill Clinton was a "gun Grabber" and he would take my guns away. He was re-elected in 96 and still no gun grabber showed up at my door. I was also told that Obama would take my guns away. Well so far no and I don't think it will happen after he is re-elected. You seem to be obsessed with a problem that does not exist. How would you categorize me? I own guns but I have not done any shooting in years. I used to go shooting with my buddies at the dropzone after jumping but that was years ago and I have never needed a gun for protection. My dad is a collector and he has all kinds of cool stuff. I support legal gun ownership but I have no problem with reasonable restrictions to keep guns away from dangerous criminals and troubled teenagers. So how do I fit in to you variety of gun-o phobe? Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns. They have succeeded in small ways, (i.e. "assault weapons") and in some places (D.C., Chicago, etc.) And they've succeeded in big ways in other countries (Britain, Australia, etc.) If you ignore the fact that they are trying, and just presume that it will never happen, then it is much more likely that it WILL happen. If you want to ensure that it won't happen, then you have to resist the attempts of those who are trying to do it. Just because they haven't come for your pistols or shotguns doesn't mean they aren't trying. They've come for so-called "assault weapons", and they've tried to ban many handguns and other types of firearms. Furthermore, just because they haven't come for yours yet, doesn't mean you shouldn't be concerned about them coming for other peoples guns. Shall I repeat that quote from Reverend Martin Niemoller, about "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew"? As for the 2nd part of your message, you don't sound like a gun-o-phobe at all to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #84 February 20, 2012 QuoteBAN CHOCOLATE MILK! That's how it starts, and then the next thing you know, they're coming for your egg nog too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #85 February 20, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Still waiting on your solution you know the one that does not take guns away from everyone else? Baby steps: Step 1. Stop pretending that there isn't a problem. Who is doing that? Mnealtx. Talk about pants on fire"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #86 February 20, 2012 Quote then it means you are advocating for something impossibly restrictive Once, a while back, Mr kallend decided to expound on his ideas of what he would do about the nutters (as he puts it) At that time, I said his plans would end up being a gun ban by default. You your post says it better than I could"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dannydan 5 #87 February 20, 2012 who gives two shakes about egg nog.. ack phoooey! But i WILL draw down with my "BLACK baseball bat" and defend my tequila til i run out of bullets... I i i i mean balls ;P lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #88 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge Strawman! Zero error is unattainable. Less error than we have right now can be attained when obstructionists like mnealtx, who think a few hundred murders a year are acceptable so he can play unhindered, get out of the way. That is an absolutely VILE personal attack and a lie. Your long posting history shows very clearly that you oppose any attempt to fix an obvious problem, and you even deny repeatedly that there is a problem. You even claim in this very thread (#69) that hundreds of shootings by people with a history of mental illness as just "anecdote" and not indicative of a problem. Provide a link to any post where you have admitted that gun ownership by the mentally ill is a problem, and suggested a way to improve things.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #89 February 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteit's your strawman zero alpha vs zero beta arguments are just pointless merry go rounds NOT. Where have I ever claimed that ZERO is attainable? you don't state zero is attainable, however, your counter argument is one that implies a goal of zero - and since it's unattainable by definition, then it means you are advocating for something impossibly restrictive Nonsense, When I compete at nationals, my goal isn't to come 6th, even though winning gold is truly unattainable. "Aim High" - U.S. Air Force... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #90 February 21, 2012 admitting you are purposely overstating your intent is the first step ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,995 #91 February 21, 2012 >Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns. I think after all the "IF OBAMA IS ELECTED HE WILL GRAB YOUR GUNS!" speeches no one really buys that any more. The boy who cried wolf and all that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #92 February 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge Strawman! Zero error is unattainable. Less error than we have right now can be attained when obstructionists like mnealtx, who think a few hundred murders a year are acceptable so he can play unhindered, get out of the way. That is an absolutely VILE personal attack and a lie. Your long posting history shows very clearly that you oppose any attempt to fix an obvious problem, and you even deny repeatedly that there is a problem. You have yet to prove your obvious problem. Anecdotes after the fact don't cut it. GCA 68 restrictions are the guide - if you don't have numbers for GCA banned individuals that committed the crimes, again you have only anecdotes after the fact. QuoteYou even claim in this very thread (#69) that hundreds of shootings by people with a history of mental illness as just "anecdote" and not indicative of a problem. Youtube diagnoses aren't evidence. Bring some facts for once. QuoteProvide a link to any post where you have admitted that gun ownership by the mentally ill is a problem, and suggested a way to improve things. Provide a link to any post where you've shown evidence that GCA banned individuals committed the crimes, first. Then you'd actually have a leg to stand on when you whinge about implementation. Until that point, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sammer 0 #93 February 21, 2012 Quote>Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns. I think after all the "IF OBAMA IS ELECTED HE WILL GRAB YOUR GUNS!" speeches no one really buys that any more. The boy who cried wolf and all that. He did state he wanted to ban assault weapons during his campaign. That was actually written on his website before the election. Sure he hasn't gotten around to it yet, but then he hasn't done anything else he promised either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #94 February 21, 2012 Quote>Plenty of politicians in this country would still love to take away our guns. I think after all the "IF OBAMA IS ELECTED HE WILL GRAB YOUR GUNS!" speeches no one really buys that any more. The boy who cried wolf and all that. You may wish to look at his budget before you open up on this topic again.........."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #95 February 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Since neither Cho nor Loughner were GCA barred, EXACTLY! A perfect illustration of the inadequate implementation of a prohibition on gun purchases by the deranged. are you STILL advocating for a psychological screening process with zero alpha error? (or is it beta?) either way, zero of one forces 100% of the other, as you know - you realize you actually are trolling, no matter how you pitch it - because there is no such thing as a perfect solution. you're not building a bridge Strawman! Zero error is unattainable. Less error than we have right now can be attained when obstructionists like mnealtx, who think a few hundred murders a year are acceptable so he can play unhindered, get out of the way. That is an absolutely VILE personal attack and a lie. Your long posting history shows very clearly that you oppose any attempt to fix an obvious problem, and you even deny repeatedly that there is a problem. You have yet to prove your obvious problem. Anecdotes after the fact don't cut it. GCA 68 restrictions are the guide - if you don't have numbers for GCA banned individuals that committed the crimes, again you have only anecdotes after the fact. QuoteYou even claim in this very thread (#69) that hundreds of shootings by people with a history of mental illness as just "anecdote" and not indicative of a problem. Youtube diagnoses aren't evidence. Bring some facts for once. QuoteProvide a link to any post where you have admitted that gun ownership by the mentally ill is a problem, and suggested a way to improve things. Provide a link to any post where you've shown evidence that GCA banned individuals committed the crimes, first. Then you'd actually have a leg to stand on when you whinge about implementation. Until that point, your argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors. You continue to be in denial that clearly unhinged individuals like Cho, Loughner and the Christmas day killer represent any kind of problem. Their victims are lots of DEAD PEOPLE, not anecdotes or collateral damage.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #96 February 21, 2012 QuoteTheir victims are lots of DEAD PEOPLE, not anecdotes or collateral damage. You howl over Loughner and Cho and ignore the THOUSANDS of other murders committed. Your only thought is how you can use the murder to denigrate those who won't disarm as you think they should. You care NOTHING of the victims, only to the advantage you create from their death.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #97 February 21, 2012 QuoteIt is already illegal to be a lunatic and go hurting people. Would it be better if the lunatic used a bat? Yes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #98 February 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteIt is already illegal to be a lunatic and go hurting people. Would it be better if the lunatic used a bat? Yes It's more personal that way"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freddysdaddy 0 #99 February 21, 2012 Quote weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..." i guess, for the gun-lovers there is only one category? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 February 21, 2012 Quote Quote weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..." i guess, for the gun-lovers there is only one category? I don't think that is true I just sat through a weapons safety and training course. There was one guy in there that , through his actions and statments, caused the instructor to call local LE. They are going to pull his carry permit and have, for now, taken all the weapons he has (that they know of anyway) He was a bit scarry No, there is more than one category of gun lover The one thing I have notced however, those "nuts" that seem to have arsenals, are usually the one's you do not have to worry about........ unles you try and break into their home"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
