Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster,

I have a very good veiw on your stance with guns from past posts you've made.

Then you will have noticed that time and again I've made the point that further laws on gun control in the US are unlikely to achieve anything but jerk around honest gun owners. You will have noticed that I have said I've gone shooting myself and had a great time and see nothing wrong with either target shooting or hunting as a hobby.

I'm simply opposed to the nonsense arguments.

You call alcohol a legal product with a decent purpose, yet it kills more than 5 times the number of people yearly that guns do.

Yes, I do call it that. Because it is a legal product, and it has a decent purpose. You can't argue this, because it simply is legal, and it simply is used daily by millions of people, who enjoy it's benefits.

Instead you throw in a non-sequitur about deaths, as if the number of death caused (and your figure is about double what most studies put it at) stops a thing being legal, or stops it having a decent purpose.

Because those deaths come from misuse of the product, and in ignoring that you're doing exactly what so many people do when it comes to guns, hyper-focus on the misuse and completely ignore the majority of reasonable, beneficial use.

As far as the news goes, I don't recall seeing the stats I've provided put forward like gun violence stats.

I haven't seen stats for much of anything on the news, because the news typically hides away from stats. If you really study the news, you start noticing what you're seeing is all these odd, unrelated little anecdotes of misery from the days events, a car crash late last night, then a dude arrested in a drugs bust, then an assault from an unknown attacker, and then the day's sport.

I don't see mayors of major cities going on the news with lawsuits against distillers and brewers the way I've seen them go after gun makers.

Probably because you don't read enough.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-13-alcopops-usat_x.htm

I could go on, but you just prove my point with your comments. People focus on guns.

You started a thread on guns. We talk about that. And that's evidence of us focusing on guns? If we came into your gun thread and talked about horticulture would you consider your point disproved?

Relapse wrote:
I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people.

Well, yeah, illicit deaths due to alcohol. There are non-DUI illicit deaths due to alcohol, but they're related to over-service, and those only apply in some states, and generally not to package dealers.

Relapse wrote:
The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.

Sure, but it does matter to everyone else.

The thing I always tell people is that you should never expect a random Joe to care about your loved one just because you loved said loved one.

My old man was a hospital chaplain for a few years (Worst job ever, if he is anything to go by.) but he describes it as "Professional, random, concerned person."

Relapse wrote:
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

Again, alcohol isn't designed to kill. It may kill more people than guns do, but its much harder to kill someone else with booze.

Relapse wrote:No revolutionary ever started out as a full blown killer. They had to start somewhere. French and Norwegian resistance?

That's incoherent, and addresses none of the issues I raised with your position.

I'll repeat it again, what is needed to undertake an effective resistance is not dependant on small arms, and if you have the other capabilities, then getting your hands on small arms is very, very easy.

As such, your argument that a country needs small arms in order to defend itself from foreign invaders is simply wrong.

Please read that, think about it, and give a response that means something.

As far as spelling goes, whatever, the point is made.

As much as I don't like calling people up on their spelling, I like people dismissing others as naive when they themselves are so poorly informed on a subject they can't even spell the nation' name correctly.

@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

As you see the number is where I said it was. Over75,000

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

If you remove liver related deaths and similar, and focus purely at drink driving then your argument falls over, because drink driving kills about 20,000 people a year, whereas firearms kill about 30,000.

And meanwhile, I'm having a really hard time finding anyone on the planet who defends drink driving.

Yet a lot of people that come out against drunk driving drive while impaired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Dogma,

I'm talking of cars driven by impaired drivers, not cars being driven by sober people. The fact that booze isn't meant to kill doesn't matter to the people and families of those that have died because of it.
Straight up, alcohol is a poison that causes death on a greater scale than guns, yet people get more upset over gun deaths.

If you remove liver related deaths and similar, and focus purely at drink driving then your argument falls over, because drink driving kills about 20,000 people a year, whereas firearms kill about 30,000.

And meanwhile, I'm having a really hard time finding anyone on the planet who defends drink driving.

I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

It must be a way of saying it over there because here it's called drunk driving.

Relapse wrote:

ifStatement wrote:

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

It is drink driving dude. I'd bail out if I were you these two (sebster, dogma) seem to like arguing with you.

It must be a way of saying it over there, then because here, it's called drunk driving.

Could be.

Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

Thanks for the heads up. I respect a lot of what they have to say, but facts are, more people die from alcohol than guns, yet there seems to be more of a firestorm over gun deaths than alcohol related deaths.


If I didn't have the CDC stats to look at, I would have doubted my own view.

Relapse wrote:@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

Are you really, honest and truly, going to claim a life lost to liver damage, so a guy who's in his 40s at the earliest, and more like 60 or 70, is the same as a firearm death that is overwhelmingly more common among the young?

And you've stopped trying to respond to most of my arguments against various parts of your position. Is that it, just going to ignore the problems with your argument, so you can keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Relapse wrote:Thanks for the heads up. I respect a lot of what they have to say, but facts are, more people die from alcohol than guns, yet there seems to be more of a firestorm over gun deaths than alcohol related deaths.


If I didn't have the CDC stats to look at, I would have doubted my own view.

Yeh I'm just saying some of these bitter internet dwellers aren't worth arguing with.

In any case like I said earlier. If you were approaching this argument from the standpoint of: alcohol is a bigger killer than guns therefore why isn't there a similar amount of debate over it. You might get a lot further. Rather than arguing that drink is the worse of the two evils.

Relapse wrote:I believe you mean drunk driving, not drink driving. If you wish to talk intellegently about something, please learn how to spell it....now where did I just read that?

There was deliberate shift in terminology made a couple of decades ago, to emphasise that any amount of alcohol is dangerous when driving. So it went from 'don't drunk drive' to 'don't drink then drive'. It's all part of the progression from .15 to .08 to .05. I don't believe it's a difference between countries, though I could be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

If someone is posting nonsense, and someone else corrects it, then isn't that a good thing? Why would you warn someone away from getting into a debate? To protect them from the horrors having a foolish argument corrected?

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:@Sebster

CDC stats, not mine

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab

Are you really, honest and truly, going to claim a life lost to liver damage, so a guy who's in his 40s at the earliest, and more like 60 or 70, is the same as a firearm death that is overwhelmingly more common among the young?

And you've stopped trying to respond to most of my arguments against various parts of your position. Is that it, just going to ignore the problems with your argument, so you can keep believing whatever you want to believe.

It's late and I'm getting ready to go to bed. I have niether time nor inclination now to pursue every minor point you are bringing up. If you wish to carry this discussion tomorrow, I'll be glad to oblige.
If that guy in his upper years you so cavalierly give up to alcohol related death were killed by a gun, would you truly not say guns were bad
because the guy was old?

You just make my point stronger with each post like that you make.
People make more noise about gun deaths than alcohol deaths.
Case closed

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:Either way I'd leave these two. I've read a few of their posts here. They are like a pair of vultures. They circle the off topic forum waiting for someones argument to falter, then they dive in and rip them to pieces.

If someone is posting nonsense, and someone else corrects it, then isn't that a good thing? Why would you warn someone away from getting into a debate? To protect them from the horrors having a foolish argument corrected?

No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

Relapse wrote:It's late and I'm getting ready to go to bed. I have niether time nor inclination now to pursue every minor point you are bringing up. If you wish to carry this discussion tomorrow, I'll be glad to oblige.
If that guy in his upper years you so cavalierly give up to alcohol related death were killed by a gun, would you truly not say guns were bad
because the guy was old?

First up, I don't think guns are bad. I've explained this you several times, please stop ignoring it. The issue I have with you is that your claim that guns are picked on while the issues of alcohol are just ignored is completely wrong.

Second of all, yes, a person who dies at 70 is less tragic than a person that dies at 20, regardless of the cause. This is just common fething sense.

You just make my point stronger with each post like that you make.
People make more noise about gun deaths than alcohol deaths.
Case closed

You started on guns. Then when people talk about guns you claim victory because people are talking about guns. That's so ridiculous I actually kind of like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

No, I don't. I do it because I happen to think it is a good thing when people stop believing stupid things.

Sure, I'm disappointed at the number of people who continue believing nonsense after it's been demonstrated that it's wrong (either because their ego demands they can't admit to being wrong, or because they believe the nonsense because it makes them feel better and it being nonsense doesn't change how it makes them feel about themselves), but all you can do is keep on making the point.

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:No, to limit the amount of time they spend on a pointless activity. It's pretty clear that you do this internet argument gak for a sport.

No, I don't. I do it because I happen to think it is a good thing when people stop believing stupid things.

Sure, I'm disappointed at the number of people who continue believing nonsense after it's been demonstrated that it's wrong (either because their ego demands they can't admit to being wrong, or because they believe the nonsense because it makes them feel better and it being nonsense doesn't change how it makes them feel about themselves), but all you can do is keep on making the point.

lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

What about percentages?

How much guns/ammunition is sold in the country

vs.

How much alcohol is sold/consumed in the country.

I wonder what the deaths per $ ratio would be

Freakonomics people?

ifStatement wrote:
lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

You said something after you posted that XKCD comic?

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:
lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

You said something after you posted that XKCD comic?

I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

ifStatement wrote:
I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.

So, when you engage in multiple posts in criticism of those that sebster, and myself, have made you are clearly not concerned with a person being "wrong", on the internet?

ifStatement wrote:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Indeed.

ifStatement wrote:I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

So, then, why are you here?

dogma wrote:

ifStatement wrote:
I did. I think your effort to dis-merit it on the basis of it being such is out-weighed by the fact that that particular cartoon is a rather apt and amusing caricature of yourself and sebster. It's a favourite of mine as I see quite a lot of people who fit the same image in the comments sections on various sites I look at.

So, when you engage in multiple posts in criticism of those that sebster, and myself, have made you are clearly not concerned with a person being "wrong", on the internet?

ifStatement wrote:
If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Indeed.

ifStatement wrote:I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

So, then, why are you here?

A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

ifStatement wrote:
A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

What medicine?

I don't go around trying to claim other people ignore more important, or tempting, matters when they respond to me, or when they make any particular statement.

Assuming you're at GMT (based on flag) you're either unemployed, preparing for work, work from home, on holiday, or off for the day.

Should I assume the worst of you?

Nice deductions Sherlock. But lets be honest, the thing it proves most is you don't know much about me at all. Certainly not enough to make your suggested implication. Whereas I've seen your campaign against off topic fallacy with my own eyes.

Anyway, can't hang around. Off to work.

ifStatement wrote:Nice deductions Sherlock. But lets be honest, the thing it proves most is you don't know much about me at all. Certainly not enough to make your suggested implication. Whereas I've seen your campaign against off topic fallacy with my own eyes.

It proves I know as much about you, as you know about me.

ifStatement wrote:lol

The sheer arrogance of your statement aside. If your aim is seriously to enlighten others towards your path of superior knowledge you may want to consider how some of the condescending language you use may be counter productive to your aim. Most people turn the learning part of their mind off when the person they are speaking to is being so obnoxious.

If I'd come in here just presuming that I know better than someone else, then I could see the charge of arrogance sticking. But my belief that I know more about this subject, and have a more sound argument, is drawn from reading the thread.

Sometimes some people know more about a thing than someone else. Seriously, it really happens. When it does then it does no-one any favours to pretend that isn't true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:If you are looking for a more intellectual reference I would choose the idiom: you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. I would say it is fair to draw the conclusion, that a man who seeks outs fallacy on the off topic forum of a war gaming massage board in order to rebut and disqualify it does so in order to rebuild the self esteem which for whatever reason is not being gained in other areas of your life.

This is a thing you've made up inside your own head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ifStatement wrote:A taste of your own medicine is your just deserts. Sorry to be so sharp old boy, but on the evidence I have my earlier conclusion remains the most logical inference.

If that's your aim I really, really recommend you get a lot better at this. I mean, if you really wanted to give us what-for or whatever, then this thing you've done here where you've just repeated over and over again 'you're rude and shouldn't tell other people they're wrong when they're wrong' is basically just silly. The best way to do give either dogma or myself a taste of this horrible, horrible thing we apparently do to other people would be to find an argument one of us has made that's wrong, then disprove it.

The trick is, of course, and the place where you silly little crusade will be found wanting, is that I've been shown to be wrong on this forum on quite a few occasions, and each time I've withdrawn my position, and thanked the person for correcting me. Because I'm really, really not here to just tell other people off. If you'd read more carefully you'd have seen that.

Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do. Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do. Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

So, this whole line of conversation, mentioning two posters by name, isn't a crusade?

I can only imagine one other thing that it might be, and that one other thing isn't something you want to be labeled as.

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do.

So you don't care to actually do what you said you came in to this thread to do, nor do you care to find out that I'm nothing like whatever image you'd invented in your head.

Way to do... whatever it is you did here.

Sorry I can't help you feel better about yourself.

I feel just fine. What is this thing you've made up in your head about me?

Like I said I have better things to do.

Take a look at yourselves. Two people who choose a message board about war-gaming to spend a significant amount of their lives obnoxiously stamping their intellect on the off-topic section and barely ever contributing to the other forums which make up the main reason for this site. What conclusions would you draw?

Label me what you want. I don't care. I'm fairly comfortable with who I am. I aint wanting. I don't get worked up about people making judgements about me when I know they aren't true, just like everybody else.

sebster wrote:

ifStatement wrote:Wow, well thanks for your invitation but I really don't intend on making a habit of this. Far from wanting to start a crusade against the two of you and find something wrong you've said, some people have better things to do.

So you don't care to actually do what you said you came in to this thread to do, nor do you care to find out that I'm nothing like whatever image you'd invented in your head.

I didn't come into this thread for your merry self actually as much as you would have liked that. I posted on it before you did in fact.