Gun control ... actual question

[BotanyBoy]

But you didn't answer how I wanted you to, you just kept restating your thoughts....whaaaa /botonybitch.

You never answered it at all.

Your thoughts on other topics had nothing to do with the question, if they did we could have been able to have something resembling an adult conversation.

But you'd rather engage in ascription and name calling.

 

[BotanyBoy]

not answering your question =/= 'blowing hot air'

I don't know what they call it in the UK when you directly respond to a question with deflection, ascription and name calling instead of some sort of relevant discussion or gawd forbid actually answer the question, but in the USA we call that blowing a bunch of hot air.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't know what they call it in the UK when you directly respond to a question with deflection, ascription and name calling instead of some sort of relevant discussion or gawd forbid actually answer the question, but in the USA we call that blowing a bunch of hot air.

lol ... you definitely don't want to have a discussion. you just want people to provide you with something you can twist to prove some 'point'.
I've had interesting and illuminating conversations with a few people on this thread. You're not one of them, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

If anyone else reading this thinks BotBoy is being clever, or actually adding anything of value to the discussion, do speak ip ... maybe I've missed something.

 

[toeskr]

I can read just fine.

Sorry I didn't play onto your little trap question, back to the drawing board for you I guess. Now you'll have to find another way to wow us with your super smarts!

Maybe women need little guns implanted in their vaginas to stop all of this rape. Some nipple pistols couldn't hurt either. Perhaps toddlers wouldn't get diddled if they were packing heat?

Is there anything guns can't fix when you really think of it?

So let's get this straight.
If you are a protected buddy of the site owners, you can post about sexual, digital manipulation of a minor and just keep on posting? Wow!
Oh WB has em over a barrel or has pictures.

 

[Wats_butthole]

So let's get this straight.
If you are a protected buddy of the site owners, you can post about sexual, digital manipulation of a minor and just keep on posting? Wow!
Oh WB has em over a barrel or has pictures.

Im far from a protected buddy, toe fucker.

 

[AngusBridie]

More tax dollars required article 631. We shall break for a vote on increase in salary

 

[Wats_butthole]

You never answered it at all.

Your thoughts on other topics had nothing to do with the question, if they did we could have been able to have something resembling an adult conversation.

But you'd rather engage in ascription and name calling.

Im not here to answer your questions, skippy. I stated my thoughts and they differ from yours and you can't handle it. Whaa. I stuck with the original topic I replied to.
But how will we protect our gold and our virgin daughters?!!!!

Let me guess, your just going to let ISIS kill your family and wait for the police?

So what's your plan when NK invades? I bet you're one of the ones who will sit crying for the UN to save your ass!!!



But...but...Obama!!!

/botonyderp

 

[Hypoxia]

But...but...Obama!!!

Remember the old Ray Stevens XMas song?

Be careful what you say and do
'Cause Santa Claus is watching you
He's everywhere! He's everywhere!​

Substitute 'Obama' and we've got the perfect deflect-a-thon running.

 

[KimGordon67]

Remember the old Ray Stevens XMas song?

Be careful what you say and do
'Cause Santa Claus is watching you
He's everywhere! He's everywhere!​

Substitute 'Obama' and we've got the perfect deflect-a-thon running.

Are you trying to say that Santa won't be visiting BotBoy? *confused*

 

[toeskr]

Im far from a protected buddy, toe fucker.

And here you are Pedro, still posting. Incredible.

Just the wonderment of the GB.

You need to get a different hobby.

Just for future reference, if you have nothing else to contribute, leave the minors and sexual references out of it "buddy".

 

[BotanyBoy]

Im not here to answer your questions, skippy.

So then why quote them and make a lame attempt to beat around the answer you don't seem to want to own?

I stated my thoughts and they differ from yours and you can't handle it.

Oh I handle it just fine and will sleep soundly knowing you and millions of other anti-American, freedom and civil rights hating elitist aren't in a position to do anything about stripping me of my rights and in all likelihood never will be.

Not even the scary looking ones!

Whaa. I stuck with the original topic I replied to.
But how will we protect our gold and our virgin daughters?!!!!

Let me guess, your just going to let ISIS kill your family and wait for the police?

So what's your plan when NK invades? I bet you're one of the ones who will sit crying for the UN to save your ass!!!

But...but...Obama!!!

/botonyderp

Well you said a couple things of substance but still managed to make most of it more hot air.

And you couldn't even get that right.

LOL

 

[richard_daily]

We're now up to page 25 of this thread. I think the 'original question' is not necessarily the point of the discussion, which long ago morphed into the debate about whether the 'right to bear arms' was inherently related to the right to self defense in a much more general context, and more recently implied that women who didn't carry guns really shouldn't be surprised that they get raped, using Australia as an example. (Yes, I'm being facetious there - I'm still pretty fucked off about that subtle bit of victim-blaming there.)
(However, if you look at my last post, I actually SAID ' If I lived in a context where gun ownership was widespread, I might feel differently.')

There was no victim blaming going on, and I never said that a woman needed to carry a gun to defend herself. The mere presence of guns in society is a neutralizer of threat, by lots of people, not just by the potential victim.

You also stated that you were done arguing in this thread, and I respected that position, but since you decided to return, and misrepresent my position, I'll speak up again about it.

The right to self-defense may not be a human right, but it's an intrinsic right.

You feel that your teeth are enough. I disagree.

And how many people did the man that attacked you go on to randomly rape before or after? Because I promise that you weren't' the first, or the last.

People like that don't last long in the US. And good riddance to them.

 

[KimGordon67]

There was no victim blaming going on, and I never said that a woman needed to carry a gun to defend herself. The mere presence of guns in society is a neutralizer of threat, by lots of people, not just by the potential victim.

You also stated that you were done arguing in this thread, and I respected that position, but since you decided to return, and misrepresent my position, I'll speak up again about it.

The right to self-defense may not be a human right, but it's an intrinsic right.

You feel that your teeth are enough. I disagree.

And how many people did the man that attacked you go on to randomly rape before or after? Because I promise that you weren't' the first, or the last.

People like that don't last long in the US. And good riddance to them.

So I'm reading the fundamental basis of your argument here as 'women who carry guns are less likely to be raped'. Would that be relatively accurate?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So I'm reading the fundamental basis of your argument here as 'women who carry guns are less likely to be raped'. Would that be relatively accurate?

I read it as "women who carry guns are more likely to effectively fight off their attacker." but that would make sense in a manner that's not highlighting just how evil guns are and as such there is no possible way you'd even recognize that perspective as anything but pure lunacy.


But hey I'm Mr.Binary....the narrow minded.

 

[richard_daily]

So I'm reading the fundamental basis of your argument here as 'women who carry guns are less likely to be raped'. Would that be relatively accurate?

No. That's not what I've stated in the post that you just quoted.

Maybe that's what you want me to be saying, but that's not what I'm saying.

You also claimed this was a circular argument, but you keep having it. You've also stated that you're not willing or able to change your opinion on the matter.

 

[KimGordon67]

No. That's not what I've stated in the post that you just quoted.

Maybe that's what you want me to be saying, but that's not what I'm saying.

You also claimed this was a circular argument, but you keep having it. You've also stated that you're not willing or able to change your opinion on the matter.

So if that's not your argument, what is it? Because that's definitely how I read it.

(I don't think, to the best of my memory, I've used the terms 'willing' or 'able' anywhere. I maybe have said it's unlikely I'll change my opinion, because it is - just as it's clearly unlikely you'll change yours. I have, however, come to understand the position of some supporters of gun ownership better, and I can see a logic to the argument, which I couldn't before. Don't try to paint me as dogmatic.)

 

[Wats_butthole]

#alaskasafe
#derpderp

 

[richard_daily]

So if that's not your argument, what is it? Because that's definitely how I read it.

(I don't think, to the best of my memory, I've used the terms 'willing' or 'able' anywhere. I maybe have said it's unlikely I'll change my opinion, because it is - just as it's clearly unlikely you'll change yours. I have, however, come to understand the position of some supporters of gun ownership better, and I can see a logic to the argument, which I couldn't before. Don't try to paint me as dogmatic.)

I think what I said was pretty clear. The mere presence of guns in a society decreases the amount of men willing to rape a stranger significantly. It's an effective deterrent. I'm sorry that you have to be a statistic to prove the point, and I'm not doing or saying anything to downplay your experience. You brought it publicly to the forefront. I was speaking in general terms before that.

You are certainly dogmatic on this issue. Perhaps not on others, but on this one for sure.

 

[KimGordon67]

In the US that's true... In countries without wide-spread gun ownership, not so much.

Keeping a gun on your person stops rape. The numbers prove it. Australia, a country touted as "the ideal" for getting rid of guns, has had a rise in rapes, assaults, and attacks by strangers consistently since banning guns.

If you're comfortable with that, don't carry a gun. However, not everyone wants to be a victim.

Actually, don't worry about explaining it - I trawled back and found the relevant post.

I thought I was going to have to explain how this actually is 'victim blaming', but it's so clear in your actual words that it's not necessary.

 

[KimGordon67]

I think what I said was pretty clear. The mere presence of guns in a society decreases the amount of men willing to rape a stranger significantly. It's an effective deterrent. I'm sorry that you have to be a statistic to prove the point, and I'm not doing or saying anything to downplay your experience. You brought it publicly to the forefront. I was speaking in general terms before that.

You are certainly dogmatic on this issue. Perhaps not on others, but on this one for sure.

And yet WB was able to find evidence that provides a correlation between HIGH levels of gun ownership and HIGH levels of rape. And I found evidence of absolutely NO CORRELATION between state-wide levels of gun ownership and state-wide levels of violent crime. You're hanging on to the Australia example like it's the bible, and just ignoring anything else that demonstrates a different correlation.
What this suggests to me is not that my argument is proven or disproven, but that looking at correlations between gun ownership and rape levels is not helpful. Because, as anyone who actually knows anything about rape research knows, rape stats are notoriously unreliable, for a plethora of reasons. If you want to find some relationship between gun ownership and risk of rape, you need to do a whole lot more that area level statistical correlations that's based on data that is internationally recognised as unreliable. I seriously don't have time to investigate the possible causes of the rise in reported sexual assault (not 'actual' sexual assault) in Australia around that time, but I'd be genuinely surprised if it much to do with gun ownership, at least in the simplistic way you're arguing - because the vast majority of rape isn't some random stranger, so a rise in rape stats is highly unlikely to be related to a dramatic reduction in stranger-rape.

 

[richard_daily]

Actually, don't worry about explaining it - I trawled back and found the relevant post.

I thought I was going to have to explain how this actually is 'victim blaming', but it's so clear in your actual words that it's not necessary.

Glad you want to "have a conversation".

 

[richard_daily]

And yet WB was able to find evidence that provides a correlation between HIGH levels of gun ownership and HIGH levels of rape. And I found evidence of absolutely NO CORRELATION between state-wide levels of gun ownership and state-wide levels of violent crime. You're hanging on to the Australia example like it's the bible, and just ignoring anything else that demonstrates a different correlation.
What this suggests to me is not that my argument is proven or disproven, but that looking at correlations between gun ownership and rape levels is not helpful. Because, as anyone who actually knows anything about rape research knows, rape stats are notoriously unreliable, for a plethora of reasons. If you want to find some relationship between gun ownership and risk of rape, you need to do a whole lot more that area level statistical correlations that's based on data that is internationally recognised as unreliable. I seriously don't have time to investigate the possible causes of the rise in reported sexual assault (not 'actual' sexual assault) in Australia around that time, but I'd be genuinely surprised if it much to do with gun ownership, at least in the simplistic way you're arguing - because the vast majority of rape isn't some random stranger, so a rise in rape stats is highly unlikely to be related to a dramatic reduction in stranger-rape.

The vast majority of rape isn't due to a stranger... You're correct. However, in Australia, the model that anti-gunners hold up as "what works", rape by a stranger is on the rise, and has been for some time.

 

[KimGordon67]

Glad you want to "have a conversation".

You've totally ignored any evidence that contravenes your argument, both experiential and statistical. Like, totally - you haven't even attempted to explain it's existence.

And, as the post I quoted quite clearly demonstrates, you're victim-blaming. (And, in a later post, kind of blaming me for not shooting that guy and thereby preventing him from future attacks - that's pretty impressive.)

There's no 'conversation' there - they were your words, stated pretty clearly, with absolutely no attempt to engage someone who's (a) actually experienced sexual assault and (b) probably knows the field of rape research better than you.
I have never in my life used the term mansplaining, because I really don't think it's very useful, but I'm sorely freaking tempted to right now.

 

[richard_daily]

You've totally ignored any evidence that contravenes your argument, both experiential and statistical. Like, totally - you haven't even attempted to explain it's existence.

And, as the post I quoted quite clearly demonstrates, you're victim-blaming. (And, in a later post, kind of blaming me for not shooting that guy and thereby preventing him from future attacks - that's pretty impressive.)

There's no 'conversation' there - they were your words, stated pretty clearly, with absolutely no attempt to engage someone who's (a) actually experienced sexual assault and (b) probably knows the field of rape research better than you.
I have never in my life used the term mansplaining, because I really don't think it's very useful, but I'm sorely freaking tempted to right now.

No, I did nothing of the sort. I'm talking about who you are now, and how you choose to defend yourself or not defend yourself, and what you're telling other people they should or should not do in regards to firearms. You aren't obligated to defend yourself with deadly force... but you're also have no right to tell others that they can't defend themselves.

 

[KimGordon67]

The vast majority of rape isn't due to a stranger... You're correct. However, in Australia, the model that anti-gunners hold up as "what works", reported rape by a stranger is on the rise, and has been for some time.

Fixed your post. Also needs at least one reliable reference.