NRA's top lawyer was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's mother in 1964

[teapot]

@Kevin_Harrelson

OK. I read your post about you not believing in having spreadsheets or something like that. Your choice. However, your decision not to verify my facts for yourself do not make them untrue, despite how much you wish it could.

Yes… spreadsheets are against my religion. No, I said I don’t play navel gazing numbers games with gun proponents since the bulk of research done on this matter comes to conclusions that contradict the statements and mentality of the NRA. I put my faith in relevant experts and care not to argue numbers since people on this subject always choose datasets that support their argument. The bottom line is that researchers are supposed to be as objective as possible in their research and I trust their ability to avoid confirmation bias more than yours or mine. Like I said: if you can find any actual research that backs NRA claims I will read it. If you continuously insist that you done reasearch’d it, and if I was to I would come to the same conclusions, I will continue to make a mockery of your arguments.

And to all of the people beaten or stabbed to death, your deaths do not count.

Aw, this ol’ crutch. Yeah… that’s the argument I’m making. I don’t care if people are beaten, it’s just bullets that are bad. uh huh. If you cannot see how it’s easier to defend yourself in hand to hand combat over a device that can instantly kill you, at range, with the slightest touch of the trigger, you’ve got no hope.

Yeah, even the CDC, in their most recent study, could not suggest that gun control was a good idea

Can you read? That slate piece makes clear that the CDC’s conclusions don’t support either side’s argument entirely, and that their stated purpose was to: “assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies”, not make decisions about gun control.

Also, point 9 is unequivocal about the effectiveness of a particular change in law:

9: Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

[teapot]

This is what happens when you live in the echo chamber of pro-gun loons. They say false things that bolster their argument, people repeat them because these fudged numbers support their argument… If only they were true.

[teapot]

FTW sir.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@robulus

Mass shootings: Australia – down by 100%. How you guys doing?
Homicide rate: Australia – down by 68% http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

See what I mean about your stats?

So murders that AREN’T mass shootings don’t matter? Nice. Glad to hear it.

[robulus]

@Kevin_Harrelson

So murders that AREN’T mass shootings don’t matter? Nice. Glad to hear it.

No, they’d be counted in the next line “Homicide rate”, which is down 68% since the new laws came in, and which your bullshit statistics put at only 25% down.

And yes, homicide involving firearms is down too, although as part of a longer term trend.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@teapot

Once again, you’re trying to put words in my mouth. The word “assault rifle” defines the weapon. You don’t need to “know things” about guns to understand their purpose. It’s a highly portable gun that can hold a large number of rounds and can shoot effectively over a range of distances. All of these functions make it an effective killing tool, and none of those functions are necessary for hunting or target practice. Don’t let me stop you from crafting such a beautiful straw man though. Yeah… it’s materials I’m scared of… that’s the ticket.

Ummm, no. “Assault rifle” has a very specific definition, a definition that you do not even know. This definition is summed up pretty well on the very first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on assault rifles. But you are such an expert on guns that you do not even know this simple definition. Clearly, you are an expert on guns…

Clearly, you are such an expert on hunting and target shooting. I was not aware that being able to shoot effectively over a range of distance was NOT a requirement for target shooting or hunting. Clearly, the point is to be able to MISS the animal or target.

If I want tax advice, I will go to an accountant, who knows something about taxes. When I have medical questions, having some medical training is the bare minimum requirement for who I ask…

@teapot

Yes… spreadsheets are against my religion. No, I said I don’t play navel gazing numbers games with gun proponents since the bulk of research done on this matter comes to conclusions that contradict the statements and mentality of the NRA.

Wow. Amazing how unbiased numbers pulled from Wikipedia and seeing what logical conclusion can be drawn in “navel-gazing.” You don’t need FACTS to support your opinions, even facts from an unbiased source!

@teapot

I put my faith in relevant experts and care not to argue numbers since people on this subject always choose datasets that support their argument. The bottom line is that researchers are supposed to be as objective as possible in their research and I trust their ability to avoid confirmation bias more than yours or mine. Like I said: if you can find any actual research that backs NRA claims I will read it. If you continuously insist that you done reasearch’d it, and if I was to I would come to the same conclusions, I will continue to make a mockery of your arguments.

OK. Here are some links, not that I expect you to read them. If they are anti-gun, the are reputable. If they are pro-gun, they are biased.

This is a 120-page document from the INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE AND NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES. Each page is a separate document, so it is a pain to read, not that you will read it anyways…

Read "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related...

This next link goes to law.harvard.edu. Definitely biased.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

@teapot

Aw, this ol’ crutch. Yeah… that’s the argument I’m making. I don’t care if people are beaten, it’s just bullets that are bad. uh huh. If you cannot see how it’s easier to defend yourself in hand to hand combat over a device that can instantly kill you, at range, with the slightest touch of the trigger, you’ve got no hope.

And if you can’t see murder statistics that include stabbing mean that the person is DEAD, then I pity you. My point is that you are focusing entirely on GUN deaths. You cannot logically do that. Russia has almost no guns, so almost no gun deaths. However, the murder rate is about five times higher here. Would you feel better there, safe from the bad gun. Just good old harmless knives and clubs.

@teapot

Can you read? That slate piece makes clear that the CDC’s conclusions don’t support either side’s argument entirely, and that their stated purpose was to: “assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies”, not make decisions about gun control.

Also, point 9 is unequivocal about the effectiveness of a particular change in law:
> 9: Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

Yup, and they did not find in favor of gun control in general. I have no problems denying guns to people under restraining orders. There just needs to be done properly. But it is not a slam-dunk for the need for more broad gun control

@teapot

This is what happens when you live in the echo chamber of pro-gun loons. They say false things that bolster their argument, people repeat them because these fudged numbers support their argument… If only they were true.

Once again, the claim the the FBI and Wikipedia fudge their numbers.

Here is a great idea … why don’t YOU provide some un-biased numbers or proof. Actually, never mind. I think that the real point here is that you do not feel that the 2nd Amendment really is a right. Giving up rights to gain a little safety. I bet you are also a fan of the NSA and TSA.

[robulus]

@Kevin_Harrelson

teapot said:
This is what happens when you live in the echo chamber of pro-gun loons. They say false things that bolster their argument, people repeat them because these fudged numbers support their argument… If only they were true.

@Kevin_Harrelson

Once again, the claim the the FBI and Wikipedia fudge their numbers.

Well, he was referring to the numbers I picked you up on, where you purported to demonstrate that gun control in Australia had been ineffective. I gave a government source in Australia that showed your figure on murder here was grossly inaccurate.

Why don’t you clear that up? Why did you take @teapot s comment out of context and try to use it as part of your narrative? It’s not an honest response, and it does you and your cause no favours.

[robulus]

@Kevin_Harrelson

I think that the real point here is that you do not feel that the 2nd Amendment really is a right.

Should US citizens be able to possess nuclear weapons under the second amendment? Tanks? Anti aircraft guns? Surface to air missiles?

There is a limit to that right and it should legislated with level heads rather than corporate greed.

[teapot]

You truly cannot read. From your own wikipedia article (that I didn’t need to read since I’m already aware of the history and function of an assault rifle):

The Germans were the first to pioneer the assault rifle concept, during World War II, based upon research that showed that most firefights happen within 400 meters and that contemporary rifles were over-powered for most small arms combat.*

The term assault rifle is a non-direct translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally “storm rifle”, “storm” as in “military assault”).

Don’t lecture me on definitions, you asinine fool.

was not aware that being able to shoot effectively over a range of distance was NOT a requirement for target shooting or hunting.

Well, that’s because you’re stupid. Targets don’t move away from you during target practice. You can choose an appropriate gun for the distance you’re planning to shoot, and have a collection of guns because portability, versatility and weight aren’t issues in target shooting as they are in combat. I despise hunting on principle, but even the world’s shittiest hunter doesn’t need a gun that can reliably hit a target at close to medium range. If you’ve missed the first shot then you need some fucking practice, and if you need a bunch of bullets to hit a single target, well… you should choose a sport you don’t suck ass at.

You don’t need FACTS to support your opinions, even facts from an unbiased source!

I already made clear that your insistence I do this is idiotic. People in this debate choose the datasets that support their argument. I’m fully open to having my mind changed on this subject. I’ve repeatedly asked you and Mister44 for actual research on the subject that supports your arguments, and you keep coming back with this stupidity. Grow up and learn to argue honestly. I will read the links you’ve provided. We’ll see what their conclusions are but since you’ve mischaracterised everything else you’ve posted, I’m not holding out much hope.

Just good old harmless knives and clubs.

The great thing is that you clearly get in these arguments so often that you forget who you’re arguing with. I’ve already addressed this exact topic with you on the BB bbs in another thread. The “knives and clubs” bit sticks out like a sore thumb. You started your commentary here by saying you’re a constitution fan, which I called BS on, since we’ve already had this argument before and I know you’re a gun nut.

I have no problems denying guns to people under restraining orders.

But doesn’t this contradict your beloved constitution? Why does the NRA resist any and all changes to gun laws? Because they’re self-serving dicks.

I think that the real point here is that you do not feel that the 2nd Amendment really is a right.

NO SHIT. I ALREADY SAID THAT.

I bet you are also a fan of the NSA and TSA.

''Hi mY namME is keviИ harroeElson. i lieK tAlkiNG to PpLz on the InetNet. I FiND itS haaRD tO rEmembA wUt HAz bin SEd AlreDDy th0. mY hobBBy iZ BuiLDiing sTraw MeИ"

Edit: @Kevin_Harrelson here’s a critique of the Harvard paper:
http://my.firedoglake.com/danps/2013/09/05/shoddy-gun-paper-excites-right-wing/

TL;DR the authors are partisan and make provably false claims.

Also, how about you point to some parts of the other paper that you think bolster your argument? Everything I’ve read in it is fairly on the fence and doesn’t come to any final or concrete conclusions.

[teapot]

Looks like we got ourselves a reader!

Oh, wait… he doesn’t have the Reader badge. NVM.

[anon67050589]

@Kevin_Harrelson

So,if somebody is attacking you and trying to kill you right now, you are ok with waiting five minutes for the police to show up? By that time it could easily be too late. I live 13 miles from the closes GAS STATION. How long do you think it would take a sheriff to show up if I needed one?

If you live 13 miles from the closest gas station, what are the realistic odds of some stranger showing up to kill you?

I live on the south side of Chicago. Apparently you live in a much more dangerous area than I do.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@teapot

Well, that’s because you’re stupid. Targets don’t move away from you during target practice. You can choose an appropriate gun for the distance you’re planning to shoot, and have a collection of guns because portability, versatility and weight aren’t issues in target shooting as they are in combat. I despise hunting on principle, but even the world’s shittiest hunter doesn’t need a gun that can reliably hit a target at close to medium range. If you’ve missed the first shot then you need some fucking practice, and if you need a bunch of bullets to hit a single target, well… you should choose a sport you don’t suck ass at.

Um, wrong. “Choose an appropriate gun” when target shooting? Hahahaha. Like the casual shooter has the money for multiple rifles like that. And, when hunting, you already know how far away the deer is going to be? The deer could be 300 yards out, or could come from around a hill 50 yards away, Of course, being against hunting, you have been in the field. Plus the 2nd Amendment is not about deer hunting in the first place.

@teapot

I already made clear that your insistence I do this is idiotic. People in this debate choose the datasets that support their argument. I’m fully open to having my mind changed on this subject. I’ve repeatedly asked you and Mister44 for actual research on the subject that supports your arguments, and you keep coming back with this stupidity. Grow up and learn to argue honestly. I will read the links you’ve provided. We’ll see what their conclusions are but since you’ve mischaracterised everything else you’ve posted, I’m not holding out much hope.

Since I gave you numbers from Wikipedia, the FBI, the Australian Government, and those are not good enough for you. I included links to scholarly articles, which you also discount. So, why are numbers from the FBI not acceptable? Are they owned by the NRA? The Wikipedia article had links to the source material. If the source material is biased, you could point out the bias. Instead, you simply ignore it because it is inconvenient and manufacture an excuse.

@teapot

The great thing is that you clearly get in these arguments so often that you forget who you’re arguing with. I’ve already addressed this exact topic with you on the BB bbs in another thread. The “knives and clubs” bit sticks out like a sore thumb. You started your commentary here by saying you’re a constitution fan, which I called BS on, since we’ve already had this argument before and I know you’re a gun nut.

Because I support the whole consitution (including 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment), I am a gun nut? So be it.

@teapot

But doesn’t this contradict your beloved constitution? Why does the NRA resist any and all changes to gun laws? Because they’re self-serving dicks.

No, it is called DUE PROCESS. Take away an individual’s rights, just have a judge involved in the process.

@teapot

NO SHIT. I ALREADY SAID THAT.

Well, enough said. That is all that I need to know about you.

@teapot

''Hi mY namME is keviИ harr<del>o</del>eElson. i lieK tAlkiNG to PpLz on the InetNet. I FiND itS haaRD tO rEmembA wUt HAz bin SEd AlreDDy th0. mY hobBBy iZ BuiLDiing sTraw MeИ"

Ummm, yeah. Right. I posted facts and statistics, and included the links and ASKED you to VERIFY what I said is true. Not good enough. You post NO links to studies yourself, and no real facts at all, and resort to ad-hominem attacks. I truly pity you, very much, very deeply. It must be nice to always be right by ignoring all facts that contradict you.

Have a nice life. All further posts by you will be cheerfully ignored.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@anon67050589

If you live 13 miles from the closest gas station, what are the realistic odds of some stranger showing up to kill you?

Admittedly, the odds are low. Non-zero, but low.

@anon67050589

I live on the south side of Chicago. Apparently you live in a much more dangerous area than I do.

If you choose to not own a firearm, that is fine. Doesn’t bother me at all. I choose to own some, not for defense, but for hunting and fun. So? I won’t tell you how to live your life, and you extend to me the same courtesy. That is all I ask.

[anon67050589]

Why do you assume I don’t own any guns?

[teapot]

@Kevin_Harrelson

Since I gave you numbers from Wikipedia, the FBI, the Australian Government, and those are not good enough for you.

Hey… dickhead… Robulus has already kindly shown that your “Australian Government” figures are bullshit. I’ve already explained that it’s easy to chose particular datasets to prove any point and I posted a link to a rather damning critique of your “scholarly articles”.

Because I support the whole consitution (including 1st, 2nd, 4th amendment), I am a gun nut? So be it.

Because I see you on these boards espousing passionate support for the other amendments all the time.

You can ignore the posts, but we can all see you for the selfish asshole you are.

Like the casual shooter has the money for multiple rifles like that.

I choose to own some

Most houses that have one gun have several. Try again.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

Mr Teapot.

OK. I finally figured out that you have actually been trolling me this entire time. It took me a while to catch on, but looking back, the pattern is plain. You would say some things that were both deliberately stupid and inflammatory at the same time, provoking an emotional response in me. Your biggest flaw was that you took your act too far. If you had toned it down, I would have believed you far longer.

Good try. I actually believed you for quite a while. I should probably slow down and take things less seriously.

Hey, no hard feelings. If I ever meet you, I will buy you a beer. Cheers!

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@anon67050589

Why do you assume I don’t own any guns?

Because you are questioning why I own one, which is typical of people who believe that you have to prove a reason to own one.

[teapot]

It’s kind of a 50/50 show, but yeah… trolling people on this topic, when I feel there’s no way to bridge the chasm between our beliefs, is a kind of competitive sport for me.

It would behoove you in future to remember those with whom you’ve previously argued on a topic, since the point at which I decided to make an aggressive mockery of you was the point at which it was obvious that you didn’t even remember that we, yes you and I, had previously covered the exact things you said in your responses.

Anyway, one day it would be good to laugh over this with a beer (Id even go target shooting with you… as long as I can keep an eye on you at all times ) but I’d encourage you to at least read the critique of the Harvard report I linked if you plan on using it as evidence to support your case in future, because it really isn’t a very good paper.

Also, I’m not sure if you saw it before it was deleted, but you are impossibly easy to personally identify. That’s not a good idea. I am technically capable, but a harmless peacenik. Other people on teh interwebs might not be. Be more careful with using your real name in multiple online communities. This goes for everyone.

Edit: I notice that you’ve since left a particularly unpleasant reply after your first, comparatively civil one. You sure you wanna go back into this territory? Don’t ask me to find comments that are here in this thread. They’re there. We’ve also had this numbers discussion in a previous thread which is why Im not interested in playing that game with you at all since I too previously found your numbers to be wrong and your datasets carefully chosen.

I freely admit that I don’t hunt because I find it morally deplorable, that doesn’t change the facts about range shooting where different rifle types ARE used for different range distances. In any case, my point still stands: if you need a magazine of rounds to hit your target you’re doing it wrong.

Also… the constitution bit is a nice story, but your Twitter commentary has no anti NSA/TSA posts yet many pro gun posts. I’ve also not seen you show up much in discussions of the NSA here and since their actions are them basically pissing on the constitution, I would have thought you’d be all over that.

PS - since you’re so far out of town, shall I order you a pizza? Don’t forget to tip.

PPS so much for cheerfully ignoring me.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

I actually DID look at that link. The very first “fact” did not hold water. It claimed that the US had twice as many guns as the 2nd highest. Sorry, not that much of a factor. Since the USA has almost one for every person, the 2nd highest has one for every other person. If you assume that there are at least two people per household, you will have, on average, at least one gun per house. If course, some will have two, some will have none. That means that most of the people in that country live in a house with a gun. That is good enough.

I actually USED to go by a different name on here that I used for about 8 years or so. Two or three years ago, BoingBoing updated its message boards, and somehow I could not get into my account. Logging into Facebook at that time was much easier, possibly a mistake, but I stand by what I say.

I would like to think that most of the people around here are good people. This whole “post a person’s address” thing is childish. Besides, what will anybody on here do? If you do not believe in owning guns, you would be too afraid to show up to my house to assault me.

[teapot]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the paper then. IMO households will typically fall into one category or the other because that’s how domestic relationships tend to work. Also doesn’t account for the large numbers of people that live alone. You need figures per household because there’s far too many variables to properly predict anything.

On the real name thing, I’d highly recommend changing it. Even on Facebook. Why the fuck should they know that? If you’re truly worried about the NSA’s snooping then you should just avoid using your real name anywhere you don’t have to. Not all dangers are physical and the physical dangers don’t all happen when you’re expecting them.