Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh oh oh

I left out "without reviewing the existing literature on the subject".

He's like our very own Glenn Beck!

Well, since you obviously have, here is your chance to educate me.  I'm all ears.

I already posted a link to a research article about income disparity and gun violence back on page one. Read it.

I'd rather have a local expert summarize it for me.  Go ahead.

I'm not an expert, that's why I posted the link to the article, because the people who wrote it ARE.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Well, those are great long-term goals.  But what are you going to do about the problem RIGHT NOW?

Wait... are you under the impression that passing more gun control laws is a short-term solution?



What on EARTH gives you that idea?

Don't answer the question with a question.  The goals you listed are good, but long term and nothing you would be able to pass or enact in the short term.  So I'll ask again.  What would you do RIGHT NOW to start impacting the issue of gun violence?

You answer questions with questions all the time, hypocrite. 

Let's take just one of my suggestions: Impose a maximum wage.

How is that not "right now"? How is passing more gun control laws somehow more immediate? It certainly hasn't shown to be effective in reducing gun violence so far, so why do you think it will start being effective now?

Okay, my first question would be what specifically is it about the maximum wage that would reduce gun violence? Walk me through it.

Don't answer a question with a question.

If you want to know, read the research. Your laziness is not my responsibility.

It's your idea I would expect you to be able to support it and explain to me how it would work.

And you support an idea by... dun Dun DUN...PROVIDING CITATIONS.

Which RWHN will never read, because this thread isn't about Sandy Hook or gun control or anything like that.  This thread is about RWHN standing in the wreckage of his life and throwing poop at anyone who comes near.

Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.

[Cain]

Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.

ANYhoo, yeah.

It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.

Come on Alty, the American People demand pics.

I try to stick by my word.
http://www.imgur.com/o4vDsOs.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8n7m7Z8.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg

The American People appreciate your noble sacrifice.

I hope you've learnt your lesson.

[Salty]

For TGRR: http://db.tt/2AGw3XOk

I have, Cain. Now, you'll have to excuse me, this thread has done something truly awful to my bowels. Not the pants, mind you, those were really good actually.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For TGRR: http://db.tt/2AGw3XOk

I have, Cain. Now, you'll have to excuse me, this thread has done something truly awful to my bowels. Not the pants, mind you, those were really good actually.

Computer's bouncing it.  Not the nannywall, the comp.  I'll try later.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No, you're fucking not.  You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views.  Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.

Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control.  So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark. 


But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good.  I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general.  But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.


What specifically does the maximum wage do?  Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs.  But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs?  What do you do about them?

Wow, you don't understand this at all.

Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.

Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Man, I don't know why I though this thread was about guns. I feel like an asshole now.

ANYhoo, yeah.

It is now about a picture of you eating your pants.

Come on Alty, the American People demand pics.

I try to stick by my word.
http://www.imgur.com/o4vDsOs.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8n7m7Z8.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/8y9USiQ.jpeg

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, you're fucking not.  You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views.  Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.

Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control.  So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark. 


But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good.  I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general.  But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.


What specifically does the maximum wage do?  Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs.  But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs?  What do you do about them?

Wow, you don't understand this at all.

Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.

Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.

Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.

Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about.  The Potter Stewart argument, basically.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No, you're fucking not.  You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views.  Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.

Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control.  So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark. 


But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good.  I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general.  But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.


What specifically does the maximum wage do?  Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs.  But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs?  What do you do about them?

Wow, you don't understand this at all.

Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.

Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.

Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.

Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about.  The Potter Stewart argument, basically.

Dude's got a lot of problems with honesty.

[East Coast Hustle]

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to have my social policy dictated to me by someone who's a little less odious a human being. Listening to RWHN go on about what's wrong with the world and how to fix it is like listening to Dr. Mengele tell me I have to brush my teeth before bed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.

The pattern's been pretty fucking obvious for a very long time now.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to have my social policy dictated to me by someone who's a little less odious a human being. Listening to RWHN go on about what's wrong with the world and how to fix it is like listening to Dr. Mengele tell me I have to brush my teeth before bed.

Well, he IS a doctor, you know.  You have to look at the BIG PICTURE.  Which is you, brushing your teeth regularly.  Not Dr Mengele's clinical practice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No, you're fucking not.  You're ignoring the citation, because the citation disagrees with your ham-fisted authoritarian views.  Also, ignoring the citation lets you wiggle out of a bad spot, which would be anything involving an actual debate, because that's not why you're here.

Well, actually, if you look back you'll see I already stated I was in full agreement with at least oneof the articles Nigel posted, which supported a multi-faceted approach which included gun control.  So I'm afraid you are a bit off the mark. 


But the thing is, okay, maximum wage sounds good.  I mean, I certainly would not argue against that policy, in general.  But if it is being proposed as a part of reducing gun violence, you have to be able to explain how that works in your proposal.


What specifically does the maximum wage do?  Okay,so it will increase the wages for jobs.  But what about the kids engaged in gun violence who don't have jobs?  What do you do about them?

Wow, you don't understand this at all.

Because you absolutely refuse to read the research I posted.

Basically, the researchers found that it's not low income that is linked to gun violence, but a wide income disparity.

Then he'll expect you to explain, in detail, the economics of a higher-paid working class.

Then he'll blow it off and revert to the media frenzy bullshit some more, and demand the banning of weapons he can't even be bothered to know anything about.  The Potter Stewart argument, basically.

Dude's got a lot of problems with honesty.

Dude knows a good way to kill off any actual content or even conversations that don't involve him telling everyone what to do or where to get off.

And we've been really bad about rewarding him for this shit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, that's definitely the impression I'm getting. He's always extra mean and extra stupid right after he posts anything about his wife.

The pattern's been pretty fucking obvious for a very long time now.

Yeah, you and I called it what, a year ago? More?

I still have money on that he's boning that co-worker he forgot he posted about.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, I do recall him trashing more than a few threads with his puns, then saying that "he's only here for the laughs".  HIS laughs, not anyone else's.

The last piece of content he wrote that wasn't some passive-aggressive swipe was "And in the end, he had to be wheeled away"...in 2009.

Which was also the time he moved from talking about his wife and kids to just talking about his kids.  I think the timeline of events has been truncated...As a BEST possible scenario.  Otherwise, he was just being THAT sort of person for two years and SURPRISE!   She left.

I would.