DescentBB

For saying perfectly stupid things. Wonder how much the main stream will report on this:

"A freshman Colorado lawmaker apologized Monday for suggesting during debate on gun control that a woman concerned about being raped should not be trusted with a gun -- but should instead use a whistle or call box."

So there ya go TC, If you're going to be raped you just can't be allowed to carry a firearm. Of course if a man was about to be raped, I guess he can be trusted to carry a pistol.

woodchip wrote:For saying perfectly stupid things. Wonder how much the main stream will report on this:

"A freshman Colorado lawmaker apologized Monday for suggesting during debate on gun control that a woman concerned about being raped should not be trusted with a gun -- but should instead use a whistle or call box."

So there ya go TC, If you're going to be raped you just can't be allowed to carry a firearm. Of course if a man was about to be raped, I guess he can be trusted to carry a pistol.

dumb sounding statement,for the general reason that males just ought not be throwing rape around as subject matter in political discourse. He should have pointed out that carrying a weapon is sort of stupid in any such dangerous situation. Because, most always, the victim is overcome by surprise. The attacker just doesn't come up and suggest victimization or approach head-on with a weapon. They jump their prey, and a gun becomes useless, unless the ostensible victim is walking through the locale in full combat mode, like a SWAT team cop in an active crime scene. In fact, the gun proves to be WORSE than useless, because now the perpetrator has a deadly weapon to grab and turn on the victim. Guns are so often false security.....

in the same league as the many Repubs throwing around rape as a part of anti-abortion discourse? Hardly even close...

So now you're an expert on how rape scenarios unfold. Just where do you get your ideas that
"In fact, the gun proves to be WORSE than useless, because now the perpetrator has a deadly weapon to grab and turn on the victim."

You have a lot of cases to show that this is the case?

Let me know when the Dem-side tally on the subject reaches this level. I don't doubt it will happen.

woodchip wrote:So now you're an expert on how rape scenarios unfold.

um, no, in fact, I specifically used the words 'any such dangerous situation'. You saw that, of course?

Just where do you get your ideas that
"In fact, the gun proves to be WORSE than useless, because now the perpetrator has a deadly weapon to grab and turn on the victim."

because it's both common sense, and examples can be seen with regularity......people get jumped and get guns stolen fairly often out in the real world.
Now, in woody-world, I know, everyone who carries is on high alert, stalking down the street in a full crouch, wearing camo, more than likely.....

You have a lot of cases to show that this is the case?

you really need 'cases' of common sense? A gun not drawn is a gun that can victimize the owner. It's why(and I have shown the stats on this) why gun owners are far more likely to die by the gun.

More importantly, most cases of rape involve someone the victim already knows; the "assaulted in a dark alley" case is a very infrequent occurrence.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So now you're an expert on how rape scenarios unfold.

um, no, in fact, I specifically used the words 'any such dangerous situation'. You saw that, of course?

The topic was rape so I assumed "any such" was referring to rape cases.

callmeslick wrote:

Just where do you get your ideas that
"In fact, the gun proves to be WORSE than useless, because now the perpetrator has a deadly weapon to grab and turn on the victim."

because it's both common sense, and examples can be seen with regularity......people get jumped and get guns stolen fairly often out in the real world.
Now, in woody-world, I know, everyone who carries is on high alert, stalking down the street in a full crouch, wearing camo, more than likely.....

Another Camelsdick reply based on absolutely zero experience with conceal carry. As such he lives in a fantasy world of what carrying a firearm entails. In slicks world, the old adage about if you're going to be raped "just lie down and enjoy it" seems to be all the protection you need. Hopefully you'll live through the experience. So much for the war on women.

callmeslick wrote:

You have a lot of cases to show that this is the case?

you really need 'cases' of common sense? A gun not drawn is a gun that can victimize the owner. It's why(and I have shown the stats on this) why gun owners are far more likely to die by the gun.

Again your common sense is based on pure ignorance. Just recently a Detroit high school coach was walking a female student to her car when two men with guns approached them. The coach drew and fired his pistol, killing one and wounding the other. In slicksters world the unarmed coach would of been killed and the girl abducted, raped and killed. The bleeding heart liberal press would of bemoaned the results and said how we need more gun control so cases like this won't happen again.
Hate to be a female relative of yours slick, and take your advise.

Oh and I don't remember any stats you've shown. I do know a professor John Lott has a whole bunch of stats and none of them agree with you.

well, woody, that's a new technique for you.....forgetfulness. I must have posted here over 3 different links to that data, including a rather substantial PDF file of an academic study with a host of various breakdowns. Of course, you now claim to not remember seeing them......

Well I honestly don't, so if you will kindly link the thread...

I think it is someplace in the monster gun thread.....but the point really is, you HAVE to be aware that the statistics have long, long shown that gun owners are more susceptable to being victims of gun violence. Further, to try and stay on original topic, I actually agreed with you, Woody. That was a stupid point for the Colorado rep to bring up. Any time men try to use any aspect of rape(of which they are seldom victims) it comes off as stupid. Will it get major media play? Unlikely, depending on one's view of major, but I did come across it from another source than you, so it is public knowledge, for anyone who wishes to read it. Since it isn't(as was pointed out to you) some sort of ongoing mass stupidity on the part of Dems, likely less legs to the story than some of the GOP blunders.

I don't recall seeing any link that supports these statistics you often cite. I read them all when you post them. I do recall you claiming outcomes that were NOT supported by your own stats however...

That gun-owners-more-likely-to-be-gun-victims stat for example is only arrived at by including gang members shooting other 'gun owning' gang members! They do the majority of shooting by "gun owner" so of course the statistical outcome is quite slanted to support the conclusion you imply however, in a discussion of a nongangbanger carrying in self defense, you will find the stats change drastically! And I find your point to be ridiculous because of the slanted stats you herald.


I got an alert from the campus police a couple nights ago where my daughter goes to school, the description was "....a Camry stopped next to him. The suspect in the passenger seat asked the victim for the time, then got out of the car, then pointed a gun at the victim."

Sneaky huh? The guy never had a chance to see the gunman....NOT.

I don't go around in combat mode but when three guys in hoodies roll up on me at 1am my 9mm is in my hand halfway out of the holster....if one then starts to get out of the car and reaches to produce any thing from concealment he will be the one who is surprised, not me.

Last night another alert....girl "was approached by suspect" who then raped and robbed her.

Slick please post your stats that acurately support your perceptions and why do you live near so many evil ninjas anyway?

seems I'm not the one near ANY evil ninjas. The last time I was approached by three guys in hoods it was at a graduate school commencement.....

one of the articles out of the thousand or so out there....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

callmeslick wrote:one of the articles out of the thousand or so out there....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

Now give us the stats that don't include gang bangers shooting other 'gun owning' gang bangers please....

Here is a little exercise in logic for you that will save you from trying provide that which doesn't exist.
At a minimum, every year law abiding citizens use a gun to stop a violent aggressor an average of 120,000 times.

So for your perception to be reality there needs to be at the very least 60,001 incidents a year average where an armed law abiding citizen is both carrying a gun for self defense and is injured or killed. That doesn't happen slick.

You have accepted, at face value, a bunch of manipulated statistics designed to give people the perception you have.

Well lets see, I went to Fact check and they have a well rounded discussion on firearms. One interesting statement:

"Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

It would seem these experts admit that "limitations of existing data and methods" prevent a accurate picture of what is going on...unlike what your link supports

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:one of the articles out of the thousand or so out there....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... illed.html

Now give us the stats that don't include gang bangers shooting other 'gun owning' gang bangers please....

Here is a little exercise in logic for you that will save you from trying provide that which doesn't exist.
At a minimum, every year law abiding citizens use a gun to stop a violent aggressor an average of 120,000 times.

So for your perception to be reality there needs to be at the very least 60,001 incidents a year average where an armed law abiding citizen is both carrying a gun for self defense and is injured or killed. That doesn't happen slick.

You have accepted, at face value, a bunch of manipulated statistics designed to give people the perception you have.

actually, they do account for that, and as the article states, it is impossible to perform the best possible study, which would entail giving half of the test subjects guns and following the group for a couple of decades. Look, you all believe what you want. Frankly, the 'gangbanger' hedge is just a cheap out. Hell, 'gangbangers' are more likely than most to be on high alert and they still get shot, and in them, you have a built in database of folks carrying weapons, and likely to be targeted for sheer lifestyle reasons. Not only proof of my core point here, but CONVINCING proof that as a preventative, a gun is HIGHLY overrated.

oh, and woody, the article(and myself, above) clearly point out why there are scientific limitations. Still no closer to proving your contention, are you, by pooh-poohing my data?

callmeslick wrote:
because it's both common sense, and examples can be seen with regularity......people get jumped and get guns stolen fairly often out in the real world.

From a CATO Institute paper:

The data set contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a
criminal took a gun away from a defender; the reverse was reported more
than 20 times more often

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/file ... argets.pdf

Long read but many interesting items

so you have about a 50/50 shot, statistically(small sample size)? Way to prove my point.....if you were carrying no gun, you have ZERO chance.

callmeslick wrote:...

actually, they do account for that, and as the article states, ...

Bullcrap! The article merely acknowledges that their conclusion is full of conjecture due to variables not accounted for!
'Taking something into account' isn't the same as adjusting your compiling process to correct for the bad data!! But that is exactly what you just tried to peddle here.

And in a discussion of normal people using guns for defense, which I assumed we were talking about, to reject the inclusion of the extremely different odds-of-survival of gun owning gang bangers into the findings IS NOT a dodge. Your trying to rationalize that poisoning of the data IS.

People who carry guns are more likely to be shot, and firemen are more likely to be burned…more no ★■◆●…duh news at 11:00

As I have stated before…your stats are useless without the proper context on exactly why someone is carrying a gun, and what circumstances arise that cause the violence.

Also, even if true, as I also stated before…if you carry a gun, and that involves extra risk, then that is something you have to accept, and in no way has any bearing on your right to carry…is simply an argument against carrying, not the right to.

I take the extra risk to drive a car to my destination, rather than the safer train…so that revokes my right to drive?

Non relative argument…period. (in the context of rights, which is the issue here)

freaking hilarious.....
I haven't seen footwork out of males like this since the wife dragged me to Riverdance.

Yes, captain KneeJerk...

callmeslick wrote:freaking hilarious.....
I haven't seen footwork out of males like this since the wife dragged me to Riverdance.

I haven't seen denial like yours since I saw Charley Sheen tell us tiger piss made him invulnerable to drug addiction.

can't even get denial and assertion straight, huh, Fred Astaire?

callmeslick wrote:can't even get denial and assertion straight, huh, Fred Astaire?

I have them all sorted out properly.
Your assertions are shot down with facts and logic and you go into complete denial mode.
Yep, got it. It is all on display for who ever wants to read it.

now, here's a topic to really argue over:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/world ... share&_r=0

Spidey wrote:Yes, captain KneeJerk...

repetition isn't your friend......unless you wish relegation to lap-dog status. Woof!

Like I give a ★■◆● what you think.

nice comeback

Okay, boys. You had a nice correlation-vs-causation dialogue going there. Try getting back to it.

This is not a competition. You lost all respect from me when you decided to start with the little insults. (and you were warned, when you came here)

I don’t care what the hell you think, is not a comeback…it’s the truth.

You offer nothing but left wing propaganda, and spin…wow, boring to the max.

Spidey wrote:You offer nothing but left wing propaganda, and spin…wow, boring to the max.

sort of funny, considering that I am hardly left-wing, or even in sight of the left wing of the political spectrum, I may be a bit to the left of the current dead-center, but not that far, at all. You think I am left wing? You should see the folks I debate on Progressive boards, one of whom I write for as the house Centrist voice.
As I've said, and the words I write here don't veer off this, the closest American politician in my life to my current political views would have been Dwight Eisenhower.....that old leftist.

woodchip wrote:For saying perfectly stupid things. Wonder how much the main stream will report on this:

"A freshman Colorado lawmaker apologized Monday for suggesting during debate on gun control that a woman concerned about being raped should not be trusted with a gun -- but should instead use a whistle or call box."

So there ya go TC, If you're going to be raped you just can't be allowed to carry a firearm. Of course if a man was about to be raped, I guess he can be trusted to carry a pistol.

Pffffft! Where did I say the Dems have the lock on intelligence? I've heard quite a few of them in my time spout absolute nonsense because they're afflicted with foot-in-mouth disease and a brain that's not in gear half the time. But I do hear far more moronic sexist prattle from the Republican persuasion than the Democratic persuasion. In fact, quite a bit more it spilled out of the mouths of Republicans than from Dems just this last election, so there's no accounting for the modern informed man.

I do take offense that this idiot-of-an-excuse for a male state representative thinks that women can't handle a gun. He did apologize, but that horse is already out of the barn, isn't it? It can't be "unsaid".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02 ... e-comment/

I consider myself a pretty good shot with a pistol. I bested several males at the shooting range one time with a very close placement of shots, so I think that I can handle a gun fairly well and hit what I aim and fire at. I also know how to field strip and clean my weapon too. I can also fix a whole host of machinery, which I suppose might upset this guy's world view of women. Maybe he's just compensating for something........

But that's beside the point. How many effing whistle and call boxes does this idiot think are available for a woman's convenience if she get's attacked on some dark street corner? Has this guy even been out in the real world? An even better question is, has he ever feel like he's "prey" whenever he walks alone down a deserted street at night, hmmmmmm? Does he worry when his car breaks down on a lonely stretch of road that he might possibly end up a rape target by that male who pulled up behind her to assist, maybe even at the hands of a male police officer? I bet "no" to either scenario. Ask any female, and you'll receive the same answer, "yes". As a male, he has absolutely NO IDEA about that sensation, WHATSOEVER. Until he's felt like prey, he needs to keep his pie hole shut.

callmeslick wrote:sort of funny, considering that I am hardly left-wing, or even in sight of the left wing of the political spectrum, I may be a bit to the left of the current dead-center, but not that far, at all. You think I am left wing? You should see the folks I debate on Progressive boards, one of whom I write for as the house Centrist voice.
As I've said, and the words I write here don't veer off this, the closest American politician in my life to my current political views would have been Dwight Eisenhower.....that old leftist.

link?

hey, i wanna see these boards you mentioned, dangit.

not a chance.....you'd then get my real name, and I don't want some of these characters stalking me!!

Shucks. There go our summer road-trip plans. Where to in lieu, Woody, Will, Flip?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Shucks. There go our summer road-trip plans. Where to in lieu, Woody, Will, Flip?

I hear Camp David is nice in summer....
Now that I've put all of us on the short list by typing that location we'll be lucky if it isn't Gitmo for all of us! lol

Well slick let’s take a tally…

Party…Democrat

Issue…Position

Taxes…Left
Weed…Left
Abortion…Left
Social Programs…Left
Gay Rights…Left
Debt & Deficit…Left
Guns…Left
Health Care…left
Religion...Left
Etc…in fact I can’t honestly think of one issue to credit a “right”.

There is only one person on this board who believes you don’t lean to the left (and that’s an understatement) and that person couldn’t find a leftist at the local socialist party headquarters.


I’m giving you this opportunity to list the issues that would bring the needle back to the center. (and please note the 1950’s Republican Party's irrelevance to the modern right)

Not, that I really care or anything…