Overkill - Our correspondent is blown away at the largest gun show in the U.S. (Las Vegas)

[shadowrider]

LAS VEGAS—My nametag revealed I was a journalist from Alaska, so I said I was researching an article on firearms for bear protection in the Last Frontier backcountry. Century International Arms salesman Steve Sanko reached into a glass display case and came up with a bulky, tricked-out handgun.

“If you’re looking for a compact bear gun, this is the best we have to offer,” Sanko said. “It’s our new for 2011, Centurion AK 39, semi-automatic pistol.”

I handled the gun. It looked more like Han Solo’s blaster pistol than one of the big bore revolvers—.44 magnums and .454 Casulls—that Alaskans often pack in bear country when they’re too lazy to carry a shotgun or a rifle. Those guns hold six bullets. The one in my hands could fire 30 rounds without reloading.

Sanko continued his sales pitch.

“The high-capacity magazine makes it illegal in New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut and Hawaii, but in Alaska—no problem!”

--snip--

Consider the legitimate personal protection needs of Alaskans when it comes to defending against their fellow man. First, there’s “home defense,” that is, defending one’s residence against intruders. The best weapon’s a shotgun. Easy to operate, no need to aim with high precision, fun for the whole family. Plus, the distinctive chik-chik sound of a shell being chambered in a pump-action shotty is known and respected all over the world. But let’s say that for whatever reason, you want to keep a handgun for home defense. Fine. Why in the hell do you need 25, 30 or 50 bullets and a ported barrel? Are you Al Pacino in the last scene of Scarface?

--snip--

"I don’t think I’m being unreasonable here, and I’m hardly anti-gun. The way I see it, owning a firearm in Alaska is like owning a Sports Utility Vehicle in Alaska—totally justifiable. Rugged individualism, outdoors adventuring, subsistence hunting, self-reliance, frontier mentality, I’m all about it. But surely reasonable Alaskans can support the broad concept of private gun ownership while agreeing that high-capacity assault rifles and handguns hold no constructive purpose in this state or any other.

http://www.anchoragepress.com/articles/2011/02/03/news/doc4d49e3289f8ab880517843.txt

"I don’t think I’m being unreasonable here, and I’m hardly anti-gun.

My gun of choice for both home protection and bear protection is a Mossberg 500 shotgun.

He's using Empathy:
Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.

Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

2. The thing about gun control advocates is

Nothing is ever enough for them. They want to restrict/ban more and more. When is "enough is enough" for THEM?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

32. On the other half of the equation...

On the other half of the equation...

There's a word for people who cling to absurd beliefs in ignorance of massive evidence.

They're called cultists.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. So he poses as an alaskan looking for bear protection...

and then berates the selected pistol as completely unsuitable/uneccessary for home defense. :crazy:

That's like shopping for a Harley and then chastizing it for not being able to carry enough groceries...
What stupid dickwad - fairly representative of his kind, to be honest.

[shadowrider]

4. Yea

Kinda like someone from Vegas going to Alaska saying they want a small concealable weapon for personal defense, then complaining it won't stop a bear. Same thing only different.

[flamin lib]

19. "What stupid dickwad"

Yeah, ad hominem goes a long way to make you look oh so reasonable . . .

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. I'm glad that's all you take issue with...

So I'll assume you agree with the objection to the author's duplicity. :)

[flamin lib]

28. Assuming makes an ass of someone. I just get tired of ad hominem

and minutia as a way to avoid an issue.

Like being told you're too ignorant to engage in conversation over some perceived misconstruction. It's even more hypocritical when, in a later thread, the same individual asserts that s/he only reverts to childish adherence to technicalities to educate the the woefully uninformed.

Naaa, it's a lot easier to just attack the messenger. There are enough +1 dittos here to support ya' no matter what.

[pipoman]

39. Yet no response to post #1 in this thread? How surprising..not...n/t

[flamin lib]

41. Really? That's all ya' got? A form of nanny nanny booboo?

Ohhhhh! I don't have to acknowledge your point here because you didn't make that point over there? But I'm the one accused of reaching? Really?

How about the fervent few here admit that calling names and picking nits that have no bearing on the issue at hand is nothing more than an attempt to stifle conversation by assuming a self congratulatory superiority?

[pipoman]

42. You didn't have a point..

your entire post was how tired you are of Ad hom...apparently only certain adhom really bothers you. The name calling is almost entirely in your camp in this forum..I am sure you haven't noticed as obviously only certain name calling bothers you..

[flamin lib]

43. I don't have a camp in this forum.

Therein lies the problem and the reason there is a gungeon. Any deviation from the evangelic attitude of gun huggerism makes me "one of them". For the true believers there is only us and them. If you're not with us you're against us.

Black/white, either/or, saved or damned.

[PavePusher]

63. Blatent lying and misrepresentation by the author is "minutia"?

I guess I missed a fucking memo....

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Nothing's wrong with having more than you might need...

I've never seen a firefighter claim that large fireextinguishers are overkill... all anybody ever needs is a 16oz entinguisher. After all, fighting fires is dangerous and only professionals need large capacity fire extinguishers.

Social experiment: You own a rifle in your closet. You are awaken in the middle of the night and unmistakably hear intruders somewhere n your house. You have a 10 round magazine and a 20 round magazine for your rifle. While you wait for the police to arrive (after calling them), which magazine do you choose to load into your weapon incase the intruders decide to come our way?

[RSillsbee]

11. Why was your rifle unloaded in the first place? NT

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. A loaded mag takes about 2 seconds to insert... not a big deal.

Ultimately, this is also the same reason that a Hicap mag ban will change NOTHING (in terms of curbing violence or murders) except piss off people effected by the restrictions. But we won't facts stand in front of their irrational fears & desires.

[Glassunion]

20. I burn down the house so they can't take anything.

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Did the adjuster buy that story ?

[DonP]

6. Probably used to write for the Chicago Tribune

...and when they filed for bankruptcy the only "journalism" job he could find was in Anchorage.

He has to at least pretend to be pro 2nd or the citiznes might run himn out of town.

I wonder if he asked any Alaskans that actually live outside of Anchorage, more than 200 yards from a Starbuck's out in the bush, if they ever felt they had too much ammunition?

[Katya Mullethov]

13. Being a discerning connoisseur of fine firearms

I am sure he was initially drawn to the century booth by their trend setting pine , dowel ,and pegboard displays .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJgEvPKD-k


Once there , he axtes the AK guy for a bear gun , and does he produce an exquisitely engraved 2 bore double rifle with gold leaf fucking dinosaurs ? No . He hands him an AK pistol . No shit , and the moment the tiniest and firstestet droplet of urine escaped his diminutive and tightly clenched bladder , we get to hear all about it . Even a blind hog can find a milled receiver AK at SHOT show .

[bossy22]

7. gun ownership has not declined

the general population as a whole as grown more than the gun owning population. and in actuality the last 20 years or so the percentage of households with firearms have been most stable

[safeinOhio]

8. I question mind readers on either side of an

argument. "What they really want to do". "What they are really planning to do". Listen for 10 minutes to Beck or Limbaugh and you'll hear those words repeated over and over again. I don't think that is a legitimate argument. If you can't make an argument with out stating those words, you do not have an argument. Try to stick to facts and not mind reading. While some racist say they are not racist, not all people that state it are. Not every one that is for, say background checks on private sales, are for banning guns. To say so is just an agenda to silence anyone that disagrees with you. Just because the KKK supports the NRA, http://www.knightriderskkkk.com/ that doesn't make all NRA members are racist, unless you use your logic.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. If I said I disagreed with open access to abortions should someone want one,

yet I also stated that I was a proponent of womens rights... would you believe that I was a proponent of womens rights?

Same scenario in the article here. The reporter ignores the fact that what they dislike is a basic tenet of firearms ownership in America and he is maligned with almost EVERY modern semiautomatic pistol and most rifles made in the past 100 years. I understand that even within the same camps people have differing opinions. But saying you would like to ban or restrict ownership of the most common standard magazines for the most common firearms is not simply a minor difference in opinion between peers... it's an opposing viewpoint altogether. Period.

The fact that the reporter's charade was a lie to obtain information (which was not even relevant to his conclusion) and that he refers outdoorsmen who pack pistols instead of rifles as "lazy" also shows evidence he does not even identify with his claimed peers. This op-ed piece is nothing but wolf in sheep's clothing...

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Those who employ "empathy" and forced teaming think no one will *ever* notice.

Funny, innit?

[YllwFvr]

9. while I cant deny the effectiveness of an AK

and can say the rifle is probably good for taking out any bear... Ive fired a Draco AK pistol and its rather a handful. Just my preference, but I think I would easily choose a large caliber pistol over something like that. Its not easily carried, its heavy, bulky, I know of no holsters for something like that. If you want to sling something like that then knock yourself out.

Im not sure why they are freaking out about the capacity either. Its an AK. It could have a 100 round drum of you wanted to carry 8 lbs of ammo. That would be like being handed an AR15 pistol then freaking out because it also holds 30 round mags, leaving out that they make, what, 150 round drums now? Uninformed, or sensationalist spin. I think its the latter

[X_Digger]

14. And we should listen to this guy, why?

http://www.westword.com/2004-05-13/news/stalking-the-bogeyman/

This time last year I was plotting to kill a man. I was going to walk up to him, reintroduce myself and then blow his balls off. I was going to watch him writhe like a poisoned cockroach for a few seconds, then kick him onto his stomach and put three bullets in the back of his head. This time last year I had a gun, and a silencer, and a plan. I had staked out the man's tract home in Broomfield -- the gray, two-story one with the maroon trim and the American flag hanging above the doorstep. I had followed him to and from his job as an electrical engineer. I was confident I would get away with murder, because there was nothing in recent history to connect me to him. Homicide investigators look for motive, and mine was buried 25 years in the past.
.....
The more I obsessed on it, the more I came to the seemingly inescapable conclusion that the best way to make sure he never raped another child, to make sure I had my revenge, was to kill him, to just walk right up to him in a secluded place and scrape him from this world like a piece of dog shit off my shoe.

I bought the gun last April. I had a few firearms in my closet already, but they'd all been purchased legally, in my name, from a licensed firearms dealer. So I flew to Phoenix and went to a gang barrio, where I bought a Beretta 9mm with a homemade silencer and the serial number removed. I took this gun to the local garage gunsmith and had him put dozens of deep nicks and grooves in the Beretta's barrel to corrupt ballistics tests. The gunsmith warned me that this would ruin the gun's accuracy beyond a few feet, but I didn't care. I intended to get up-close and personal.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3482069/detail.html

DENVER -- A reporter for the Denver-based weekly Westword, who was arrested on suspicion of stalking a man that he said raped him in 1978, will not face charges.

The district attorney for Adams and Broomfield counties announced Thursday that he has decided not to pursue charges against writer David Holthouse, 33, and his friend, Nelson Guanipa, 29, after the couple they were accused of stalking indicated that they do not want stalking charges to be filed.

[PavePusher]

15. Not to mention his deep ignorance of how to change the ballistic signature...

And admitting to several felony acts...

I think this guy made it all up... YMMV

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Well, great, let's get that man behind bars. He just admitted to multiple felonies.

[pipoman]

40. WOW

Stellar spokesman for the cause, huh? And what in the hell was Anchorage Press thinking to send this guy to a gun show? I have learned so much about a state I previously viewed as a romantically rugged last frontier, over the last few years...it is almost as bad as the disappointment when I found out that there is no Santa Claus.

[gravity556]

60. re:And we should listen to this guy, why?

No kidding. Though he does illustrate a point-an individual intent on murdering someone isn't going to even be slowed down by background checks and waiting periods. Because a fucking criminal, by definition, BREAKS LAWS. Not only did the author of this article break the law by purchasing a handgun outside his state of residence, he purchased a firearm that was most likely stolen and had its serial number obliterated (both crimes, and in some states, felonies). Oh yeah, he also purchased a homemade suppressor (illegal to make without a form 1 and approval from the Fun Police, illegal to posess without a form 1 if home made, form 4 if purchased, also illegal to sell without an approved form 4-all violations of NFA, all federal felonies, 10 years/250k in fines on conviction per count) and defaced the weapon to obscure ballistics testing (showing intent to use the gun for unlawful purposes).

And he has the unmitigated fucking gall to bitch about magazine capacity? I must say that if I lived next to such an individual, an AK might well be my first choice as a bedside gun.

[RamboLiberal]

18. What puzzles me about SHOT Show

Is it is sponsored by the National Sports Shooting Federation. But apparently there is a lot of guns & gear displayed there that is really more aimed at Military & Tactical. Guess that's a result of the growth industry of the wars & the private operators like Xe aka Blackwater & their ilk.

And IMHO you can thank or blame those industries for some of the guns & gear filtering in to the civilian world.

It amazes me the growth of the tactical market in guns, gears, schools, instructors, wannabe schools & instructors in the last 15+ years. It has been one helluva a growth for that industry.

Even on cable TV outdoor & outdoor sports channels there are shows geared to shooting instruction & gear beyond the civilian market. Shows like SWAT TV, Tactial Arms, Tactical Impact, etc.

Description of Tactical Impact on Sports Channel TV:
Delta Force Assaulter. Navy SEAL Sniper. Australian SAS Commando. On each episode of Tactical Impact, three Special Operations combat veterans examine the guns, the gear, and the tactics that have made military history. In addition, each week they use real-world scenarios and intense live-fire exercises to give military personnel, law enforcement officers, and gun range enthusiasts the cutting edge knowledge they need to come out on top in every tactical situation.

http://tacticalimpact.tv/

These are the shows mixed in with the hunting & fishing & camping shows.

Well at least this year no industry execs got busted like last year's FBI sting. Anyone know if anything happened on this case yet?

Culminating a 2.5-year investigation, on January 20th, FBI agents arrested 22 execs and sales employees at the 2010 SHOT Show, on allegations that the defendants, to secure lucrative arms contracts, had tried to bribe FBI agents posing as foreign officials. The FBI based its arrests on alleged violations of the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/01/shot-show-shocker-fbi-nabs-22-firearms-reps-at-shot-show/

[benEzra]

21. A lot of LE/mil restricted stuff is made by companies that also make civilian stuff...

and since those companies already have a presence at SHOT, setting up a "LE/mil only" section to show their Title 2 and related wares provides more media exposure at less marginal cost than a separate LE-only exhibition would. It's also interesting for us mere peons to look at, even if we can't own it (and that probably goes for a lot of the military-history TV programming as well).

As to the NSSF support of IPSC/3-gun/"tactical" sports and gear, do keep in mind that the majority of the shooting sports involve people shooting nonhunting guns; the Field and Stream subset of the shooting sports is numerically a rather small one, albeit very lucrative per capita. And someone like me (nonhunter, recreational shooter, casual USPSA competitor, interested in personal defense) has a whole lot more use for an AR-15 or a S&W M&P 9mm than I do a 7400 or somesuch.

[RamboLiberal]

22. I agree on the latter being a CCW & IDPA shooter (dabbled in USPSA)

And I can understand the former about Shot Show and LEO/Military.

But I'm still amazed at the growth in the industry especially in tactical side last 10-15 years.

And the shows I'm talking about are not historical that much but show real world tactical training now. Even the local B&N carrying several magazines that are geared to that market and not the everyday CCW holder/3-gun competitor.

[rl6214]

25. Have you ever been to the SHOT show?

I have and I saw plenty of outdoorsmen represented with hunting blinds, hunting rations easy to pack in, any type of hunting decoy you might imagine and ALL of the hosts of the hunting/outdoors shows on TV today. Yes there is plenty aimed at (ok, maybe that wasn't the best choice of words) law enforcement and military type weapons and everything that goes along with them but the outdoorsman is very well represented.

[RamboLiberal]

27. I know the outdoorsperson is still well represented

I wish I had a pass to go to SHOT Show. Be a lot of fun just to see this gear. Closest I get is seeing it on Shooting USA or Shooting Gallery or some online sites.

I just said I'm amazed at the growth of the tactical market. I imagine 20 years ago it didn't have near the presence at any big gun market shows.

Just my humble opinion that a number of factors contributed to the tactical market including schools & trainers. The militarization of police guns & gear and tactics. The prevalence of outside security firms like Blackwater & the market to train they engendered. The AWB which helped fuel civilian interest in the "black rifles", tactical shotguns & handguns the govt didn't want you to own.

I'm looking forward this year to the NRA convention being in Pittsburgh just so I can go to the show. Loved it several years ago when it was here.

On edit:

The tactical segment accounts for 27 percent of the exhibit space in the SHOT Show and is the fastest-growing segment.

http://www.shotshowblog.com/rumor-central-addressing-some-rumors-affecting-exhibitors-at-next-years-show/

[benEzra]

29. I wonder how much of that can be credited to the MIL-STD-1913 rail.

Way back when most rifle optics had to be scope ring compatible, stocks were brand and model specific, and even AR's came with fixed carry handles (with a kludgy and stratosphere-high capability to mount an antiquated 3x or 4x scope atop the handle, blocking the irons, if you wanted), there simply wasn't much possibility of a very large secondary market in "tactical" (for want of a better word) accessories. Accessories were out there (I still have a couple of accessory catalogs from the '80s, for the mini-14/AR/SKS), but none of it was standardized, and a lot of it was overpriced crap.

Then, within the space of a few years, came the rise of non-Colt AR manufacturers, the civilian M4gery, the 1994 AWB idiocy that tripled (or more) AR sales, the development of the MIL-STD-1913-railed flattop (1995-1996) and the optics/accessory standardization it engendered, the 1997 Aimpoint contract that changed the CompM's image from range toy to serious tool, and the coming-of-age of civilian weapon lights in the late 1990's.

At some point between 1994 and 2004, the AR became a platform instead of just a model of rifle, with different configurations going together like Legos, and I'd say that's about when the accessory market really took off. And I dare say that a lot of serious shooters now have more money in the accessories than in the rifle itself. And due to the accessory market, most other rifles (and a lot of shotguns) are now designed with rails in order to use those accessories as well, which further drive the market.


Evolution of the civilian AR-15, 1960's:




late 1980's/1990's (I think):



early to mid 2000's (representative, but some of the bits are later):




Today... (this is mostly civilian Title 1 stuff):


http://www.funnyjunk.com/showcomment/2238158/

[beevul]

34. Just a guess...

"I just said I'm amazed at the growth of the tactical market. I imagine 20 years ago it didn't have near the presence at any big gun market shows."

Just a guess, but I'd say it has alot to do with intent and attempts to ban guns which fall under that classification.

[Katya Mullethov]

57. And that innovative and hard hitting piece of

of of legislation , was enacted about how long ago ?

[beevul]

58. 17-ish years?

17-ish years? And its still fresh in many many minds. We remember.

I wonder if the gun control lobby has given any thought at all, to the growth in popularity of the guns they wanted to ban, or what degree of influence their attempts and stated intend had on it.

I wonder too, if they see any parallel in the selling like hotcakes of magazines and glock handguns, after they rail against those.

People make statements frequently, something along the lines of "nobody sells guns better than the gun control lobby" - thats not an exact quote, but thats the sentiment.

I wonder if thats more true than anyone realizes.

[aikoaiko]

30. No, he is anti-gun when it comes to comes he doesn't personally want.

He doesn't realize that the same people who don't want semi-auto AK47s out there also want to ban some of the guns he owns.

[lawodevolution]

31. Good example of empathy. Here's one: I like beer and wine, I like a little scotch now and then, we

just need some common sense alcohol control such as a 5 day wait after buying alcohol and recept of the booze, now dont get me wrong I like to get drunk at parties too, but this is for the children.

[beevul]

33. Wow. Lie much?

"Gun ownership has been in long-term decline over the last 40 years."

Thats a provable falsehood.

"I said I was researching an article on firearms for bear protection in the Last Frontier backcountry"

"I went to SHOT to gauge the mood of the firearms industry in the immediate wake of the Tucson shootings..."

He admits to lieing.


Anybody wondering still, why trust is an issue in the firearms debate?

[HankyDubs]

36. lies?

That's a strong accusation. Can you prove that this person was lying?

"Anybody wondering still, why trust is an issue in the firearms debate?"

If gun rights activists were more trustworthy, trust would be less of an issue.

[beevul]

37. Let me make it clearer for you.

"Gun ownership has been in long-term decline over the last 40 years."

Thats a provable falsehood, and written by the person who wrote the article quoted in the OP.

"I said I was researching an article on firearms for bear protection in the Last Frontier backcountry". The person who wrote the article quoted, said this. If he claims he said it, but didn't, hes lieing.

"I went to SHOT to gauge the mood of the firearms industry in the immediate wake of the Tucson shootings..." The person who wrote the article quoted, said this. If this is not the truth, hes lieing. If it IS the truth, hes lieing above.

He admits to lieing. Get it?

[HankyDubs]

35. Now of course your fallacy

...that you use each and every time you post, with the image you have gotten from some right wing website, is actually twofold. First, the association is made between all gun control advocates and various dictators (even though Hitler actually liberalized gun laws, and Stalin was not the one who implemented gun control laws, since those were established in 1918). Then there's the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (After this therefore because of this) fallacy that this picture implies.

But somehow our amateur gungeon logicians never point this out...because they aren't interested in a debate based on reason, but merely in using classical logic to avoid real discussion.

"Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge." --Benjamin Jowett

And this is exactly how the amateur logicians in the gungeon use classical logic...to avoid talking about the elephant in the gungeon.

[beevul]

38. Not a single comment about the article, just unsubstantiated claims about numerous posters.

Why am I not surprised.

"But somehow our amateur gungeon logicians never point this out...because they aren't interested in a debate based on reason, but merely in using classical logic to avoid real discussion."

And yet here you are in this thread, not attempting any real discussion.

We're supposedly not in favor of discussion unless we use "classical logic", but you yourself demonstrate you aren't interested in discussion at all.

As evident, by your lack of attempt, to engage in it.

[HankyDubs]

44. quite the contrary

I'm referring to the comments that shadowguy made at the close of his post. I assume that is permitted. I wasn't all that interested in the article.

"We're supposedly not in favor of discussion unless we use "classical logic"

You seem to be having some difficulty reading what I wrote. I am criticizing the use of classical logic, hence the quote. Perhaps you should re-read my post, my points about fallacious reasoning used by shadowdude and the other amateur logicians...and the use of classical logic to avoid engaging with the elephant in the gungeon.

I could have been much more specific and criticized one particular gungeon poster, but I edited my post to remove that name...thinking that it was poor form to call out this particular person.

[beevul]

45. No sir.

"I'm referring to the comments that shadowguy made at the close of his post. I assume that is permitted. I wasn't all that interested in the article."

Which is exactly what I said you did, I just didn't use those words to describe it. Did someone say it wasn't permitted?

"You seem to be having some difficulty reading what I wrote. I am criticizing the use of classical logic, hence the quote. Perhaps you should re-read my post, my points about fallacious reasoning used by shadowdude and the other amateur logicians...and the use of classical logic to avoid engaging with the elephant in the gungeon."

And here you are, talking about others rather than discussing the "elephant in the gungeon" that you have accused others of avoiding the discussing of.

In otherwords: Not attempting any real discussion, like I said.

This is the second time in this thread, that you've demonstrated that you yourself demonstrate you aren't interested in discussion at all.

If you want to discuss the "elephant in the gungeon", post a thread about it and make an attempt at it, rather than hypocritically babbling about how nobody else wants to, after having made no attempts to in the very same thread, yourself.


That or you could provide a third example demonstrating that you would rather talk about others than discuss "the elephant in the gungeon"...

[HankyDubs]

46. yessir

"Which is exactly what I said you did, I just didn't use those words to describe it."

I wrote about shadowrider's post. That was the thread starter. I'm within my rights to point out flaws in his logic, since his post was partly about logic.

"And here you are, talking about others rather than discussing the "elephant in the gungeon" that you have accused others of avoiding the discussing of."

I'm not allowed to talk about the elephant in the gungeon. I can only talk around it. If I did address the issue head-on, my post would be reorted.

"post a thread about it and make an attempt at it"

I don't take orders from you. I'll talk about what I like when I like. I made a point in my post, which you still have not responded to. That's okay, that post wasn't directed at you.

My threads are always very popular...the gungeoneers are always quite desperate to attack them iwth snide remarks and stupidity. Don't worry, I'm considering a couple new threads in the near future that will tear apart shitty arguments like the ones I have already shredded like: "more guns=less crime" (debunked bullshit) and "your guns protect my freedom" (Egyptians debunked that bullshit argument). In the future I'm planning on dealing with the "inalienable rights" bullshit argument and the "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns" bullshit argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. And I'm sure they will be very persuasive amongst those who already agree with you.

You are merely the latest in a long line of Democratic Underground's Saviors of Gun Control, some of them still with us.


The earliest one I can recall was a certain MrBenchley. The most prominent one in recent years was not a US resident, and would get

quite incensed when their diktats about Americans in general (and American gun owners in particular) were not

treated with what they felt was the 'proper' gravitas.


In other words: Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt.

[HankyDubs]

48. ah, more bumperstickers!

I realize I won't convince any of the absolutist extremists, but I can of course tear their arguments up into little bitty pieces and annoy them enormously in the process.

I'm sure it was frustrating to this previous poster that his rational arguments were met with lazy stupidity and snotty remarks, but I'm not as fragile as some other folks. I detest "gravitas," and I'd just as soon mix it up.

[beevul]

51. About those "absolutist extremists"...

Are people that support current gun regulations but take a position of "no new gun laws for free" "absolutist extremists"?

I just want to know your definition of the phrase, so I know what you mean when you say it.

[PavePusher]

56. I haven't seen you tear up anything.

Judging by the efficacy of your "debate", I don't think you could handle a roll of toilet paper.

[beevul]

50. Those were the days weren't they?

Speaking of that uh...early example.

Its almost "feeling" like that early example is still with us, just lately.


Some uh...rather stark similarities, if you take my meaning.

[beevul]

49. No sir.

"I wrote about shadowrider's post. That was the thread starter. I'm within my rights to point out flaws in his logic, since his post was partly about logic."

While nobody said you we or were not within your rights to do anything, you wrote NOTHING about his post.

"I'm not allowed to talk about the elephant in the gungeon. I can only talk around it. If I did address the issue head-on, my post would be reorted."

Sez you. I think its more a case of you being unable to be civil per the rules, but thats my opinion.

"I don't take orders from you. I'll talk about what I like when I like. I made a point in my post, which you still have not responded to. That's okay, that post wasn't directed at you."

Nobody said you take orders from me, and I never gave any orders to you or anyone else. Its called a suggestion. Or an alternative to looking htpocritical, in this case, to put a finer point on it.

"My threads are always very popular...the gungeoneers are always quite desperate to attack them iwth snide remarks and stupidity. Don't worry, I'm considering a couple new threads in the near future that will tear apart shitty arguments like the ones I have already shredded like: "more guns=less crime" (debunked bullshit) and "your guns protect my freedom" (Egyptians debunked that bullshit argument). In the future I'm planning on dealing with the "inalienable rights" bullshit argument and the "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns" bullshit argument."

That would be a pleasant change from talking about what others do, in a thread that has nothing to do with it.

Keep in mind, if you claim to tear apart arguments that most of us here don't in fact make, after claiming we've made them, thats called a strawman.

Other than that, have at it. Just stick to the rules, and you wont have any problems. That of course doesn't mean you automatically win.

[shadowrider]

52. I can't see who you're responding to because I've activated this feature you see

I'd like to know what kind of fallacious reasoning I'm using since every word of the OP was straight out of the article. The only thing I put up was the writer was using "Empathy". So what's fallacious?

[HankyDubs]

53. I was pointing out that the image you use

implies two fallacious arguments, and additionally is deliberately insulting to gun control advocates.

[shadowrider]

54. You have a deeply personal problem with that image bordering on obsession

That is your problem, not mine.

[HankyDubs]

59. its your problem

that you have this need to insult people and use images that imply fallacious arguments.

[PavePusher]

55. You are off topic...

probably because you are WRONG and got called on it.


Good luck with that...

[HankyDubs]

61. pray tell

what was i wrong about on this thread?

If it is not permitted for me to speak about a topic mentioned in the thread starter, I will ask your permission in the future before I post.

[PavePusher]

62. More redirection from you.

Not gonna play your game, sorry.

Good night.

[SteveM]

65. Yep, seen it so many times. The names change, the crap's the same. nt

[beevul]

64. Can you possibly stretch definitions any farther?

"If it is not permitted for me to speak about a topic mentioned in the thread starter, I will ask your permission in the future before I post."



The picture you refer to appears to be part of his sig line.

The topic of this thread is not that posters sig line, nor any image that poster uses in a sig line.


You are therefore off topic.

Its not a matter of permission, its a matter of not claiming that something was the topic when it really wasn't.


Starting a thread would be the thing to do, if you really want to have a discussion about that image.


Or am I just using "classic logic"?