Welcome to Gaia! ::

Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.
Politically, I am against this no matter what, but I still hope it happens. Maybe more people would realize how full of s**t America really is.
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
Another arguing point here is that the cities with the most gun control also have the highest rates of crime (New York City and Washington D.C. for example). Inversely, the cities with the least gun control have the least crime. A Harvard study shows that the places in the world with the highest rate of gun ownership actually have the least crime, while the places with the lowest rate of gun ownership have the most crime. I don't see how people keep rejecting the correlation when the numbers are so obvious...
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Suicidesoldier#1
Britain for instance has over 30 times the average population density of the U.S.; it would be conceivable then that getting to the hospital would take a shorter amount of time, and you would have less fatalities.

It's clear you've never been to a British hospital.
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The real question is why are all these roads.

And what are they leading us to.


But more or less I support more gun control measures; I actually support having to fire 10 rounds from every gun and document the shell casing (and expansion in water, probably, so you could track rifling) so you can trace it back to certain guns and then also having serial numbers on bullets (I figure 6 3 digit combos should do the trick).

It would be a little bit harder, but honestly worth it.


Not that we'd catch criminals but.

Prove that untraced shells were being used by criminals at best and it's a decent formality. xp


But these guns laws? It's just... targeting grips, and stocks, and legitimately things to keep you from getting burned.

That's just... crazy.
well, you could simply ban .223s in semi automatic, and that would cover all AR-15s, but allow all collectors to get alternative uppers with different rounds. You could even go so far as to ban .223 and and 7.62x39 in semi automatic. While you are at it, you could ban 45ACP or possibly 9mm in semi automatic. What that would do is ban entire swaths of guns used in violence, but it wouldn't ban the bullets, and it wouldn't ban the aesthetic. Now, while I think everything ranging from LAW rockets to Bofors cannons should be available to civilians, If I had to look at data and say "if we only ban the types of guns that have a history of being used in violent crimes, which ones would those be?"

it would be semi-automatic 9x19mm, 45ACP, .223, and 7.62x39mm

It would not be bolt action, it would not be semi-automatic .40S&W, 10mm auto, .308, .416 Barrett, .50BMG, 6.6SPC, 7mm, 6.5 Grendel, and other hunter/collector calibers.

.44 Magnum and .38 Special would probably be next on the list of popular killing machines. But upon further investigation, instead of my vague broad generalizations, here's some actual statistics.

In Philadelphia, handguns most often used:
23% 9 mm pistol
18% .38 caliber revolver
16% .357 revolver
16% .22 caliber
10% .32 caliber
6% .380 caliber

clearly, almost none of my choices apply. If you wanted to slash gun violence by half by banning guns, you would get rid of 9mm, .38 specials, and .357 magnums. With the exception of the 12ga shotgun, these are the same calibers used for killing the bulk of all cops, with 25% of all cop deaths caused by a .38 special. If you wanted to end all mass shootings, you would want to ban the .223 semi automatic. Obviously there's probably something wrong with that theory as well. Check out this quote:

Quote:
A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun.


now my question is, why the ******** do you Americans pay these morons? Did you not see in plain black and white giant text that as far as these idiotic assholes are concerned, shotguns and handguns are assault weapons?

Wake up people. You are being ruled by morons.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Michael Noire
well, you could simply ban .223s in semi automatic, and that would cover all AR-15s, but allow all collectors to get alternative uppers with different rounds. You could even go so far as to ban .223 and and 7.62x39 in semi automatic. While you are at it, you could ban 45ACP or possibly 9mm in semi automatic. What that would do is ban entire swaths of guns used in violence, but it wouldn't ban the bullets, and it wouldn't ban the aesthetic. Now, while I think everything ranging from LAW rockets to Bofors cannons should be available to civilians, If I had to look at data and say "if we only ban the types of guns that have a history of being used in violent crimes, which ones would those be?"

it would be semi-automatic 9x19mm, 45ACP, .223, and 7.62x39mm

It would not be bolt action, it would not be semi-automatic .40S&W, 10mm auto, .308, .416 Barrett, .50BMG, 6.6SPC, 7mm, 6.5 Grendel, and other hunter/collector calibers.

.44 Magnum and .38 Special would probably be next on the list of popular killing machines. But upon further investigation, instead of my vague broad generalizations, here's some actual statistics.

In Philadelphia, handguns most often used:
23% 9 mm pistol
18% .38 caliber revolver
16% .357 revolver
16% .22 caliber
10% .32 caliber
6% .380 caliber

clearly, almost none of my choices apply. If you wanted to slash gun violence by half by banning guns, you would get rid of 9mm, .38 specials, and .357 magnums. With the exception of the 12ga shotgun, these are the same calibers used for killing the bulk of all cops, with 25% of all cop deaths caused by a .38 special. If you wanted to end all mass shootings, you would want to ban the .223 semi automatic. Obviously there's probably something wrong with that theory as well. Check out this quote:

Quote:
A study by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reviewed the files of 600 firearm murders that occurred in 18 jurisdictions from 1989 to 1991. The study found that handguns were used in 72% of the murders (431 murders). Ten guns were identified as assault weapons, including five pistols, four rifles, and one shotgun.


now my question is, why the ******** do you Americans pay these morons? Did you not see in plain black and white giant text that as far as these idiotic assholes are concerned, shotguns and handguns are assault weapons?

Wake up people. You are being ruled by morons.


I say we just build a bunch of giant robot birds and have them pit against each other in glorious single combat.

We teach terrorists that if they want to be cool, they have to build the best bird; then they engage in combat.


Everyone goes away happy and we stave off violence.

Problems solved.


SCREE!!!!!!
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
You haven't been to all, or even the majority of British hospitals, therefor your opinion is just representative of a fragment of the population percentage suicide soldier is speaking of. You're not clever for using reification as a tact.


It was almost entirely a play off a cultural stereotype, intended for comic effect. Obviously you didn't appreciate it, be it through lack of sharing the sense of humour, or a general ignorance of the implication. I don't really mind which.
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
One sided jokes are not jokes, and your excessively trolling doesn't give you the credibility to make implicate jokes.


By definition, a joke [of any description] is a joke. Perhaps you should concentrate on another point to make you feel good about yourself.
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Posties's avatar

Distinct Poster

Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
A joke by definition causes amusement, or laughter. Who have you amused?


Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.

As to who it may have amused, obviously not you. I, however, do not recall you constituting any form of entirety, or even a majority.
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
Fermionic
Posties
So much for going by the definition, cop out.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Because I'm not the one claiming what I say his a joke. I'm the one defrocking you if you haven't noticed.


The definition is not violated. "...to cause amusement or laughter" doesn't necessitate there being such a thing, due to the undefined nature of the tense, it is satisfied by there being an intention. Also, there are other definitions in the world to this, such as this, or number 1 and 4, or the first sentence. Definitions only exist because people use words in particular ways. This is a way in which people use the word. That there are a variety of "definitions" for the same word testifies to this. It is called "lexicography".

In addition, the latter part was there to demonstrate that you were dangerously close to an appeal to ignorance. I know how you hate fallacies.

Defrocking? If you are going to try to accord yourself a false sense of aptitude, at least do so within reasonably believable limits.
Explaining to me what lexicography is, and how a word came about is irrelevant. Claiming a definition to be false, that you just used to support your argument deems your own argument false.
Prove to me how I have a false sense of aptitude.


I did not claim that your definition was false, the "wrong" was in response to your absolutist attitude concerning your one quoted definition. I said that it was not violated, that definitions in general were all records of the use of language, and that you were wrong in the totalitarian manner with which you treated your quoted example, to quote; "so much for going by the definition". My point on definitions is that there are many for any word, that no single one is "correct", for words are used differently in different situations, to allude to different things.
It should also be noted that I never described my original comment as a joke, that was you. I only mentioned it when you made the error of claiming that a "one-sided joke" wasn't a "joke".

Your false sense of aptitude? It is the demeanour you radiate, and the words you use to describe your actions, such as the relative magnitude of "defrocking", to imply humiliating victory. No such thing has occurred.
Btw I don't hate fallacies. You just unjustly made a claim about my demeanor, that's fallacious.
You should know that excessive diction with semantic syntax creates for a bad joke.

Wrong, it is a thing written or spoken or made with a humourous intent.
You're argument is dead, but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol


I've already explained the bold in the response you just quoted, but apparently didn't care to read. It's still there, for your leisure.

Posties
...but I will admit the only valid point you had was that your joke is a joke. lol

I don't recall making that point. Maybe if you didn't make them for me, you'd find our conversations far less disagreeable.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games