Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It depends on the time in my life you caught me. Sometimes I would be clean, sometimes I would not be clean. The thing I use the most anymore is painkillers, and even that is isolated the two weekends a month and leaves your system extremely fast. I smoke weed occasionally, but not enough to always fail a test were it to come up. Right now I'd be right on the edge of failing, not sure, it's been a few weeks... unless they do hair follicle testing, then yeah I'd fail.

Interesting.

Edit: Oh and of course if I did fail a marijuana drug test, I would not be fired. They'd just make me go to rehab, it's in the contract.

You'd lose your gun though and be barred for owning any others.

 

[Jackpot]

So you're dropping the "only the IRA have rocket launchers" and "that gun law is related to the Good Friday agreement even though it took place in Manchester" arguments? Pretty selective quoting there.



edit: oh, and I had this for when our gun talk strayed over into the other thread.

Not wasting any more time on Paul Ryan esque liars

But you said you didn't have any time to do so even if you wanted to. But now suddenly you do? Why did you lie Manos? That's what Paul Ryan does .

Now stop avoiding the topic what is the title of the original article?

The same one you used. because like I said you didn't read the article properly and thought it'd be great fodder for your "guns are the only thing that protects us" line of reasoning instead of the officer specifically refuting it was down to him not being able to carry a gun. Who exactly forced you to use their bad title? You couldn't think up a more accurate one?

I would have left the last response out as it relates only to the locked thread, but wouldn't want Manos claiming selective quoting and using it as an excuse to dismiss everything posted again...

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

No I didn't, now will you kindly answer the questions at hand and stop with the non-answers and evasiveness.

Did you originally say that criminals cannot acquire guns? YES. Did you later on say that criminals can acquire guns legally 10% of the time? YES. YOU LIED.

YOU ARE NOW LYING ABOUT HAVING LIED.

Which is why you keep getting called out time and time again.

By who? YOU? Considering that virtually everybody on GAF has been "called out" by you simply for responding to one of your posts, this was not difficult to achieve.

Can we ban this clown from making any more damn threads about guns, please. All he's interested in is encouraging flaming by throwing bullshit arguments, moving the goalposts and never admitting he might possibly be wrong. Or, in other words, trolling.

There are times where it certainly seems like he's trolling. I mean, he's literally denying that he said ANY of the things that I copied and pasted from HIS posts and saying that I'm lying about all of it. But then there are other times where I'm convinced that he's just BATSHIT INSANE. The best example of which was where he contradicted himself with THREE different statements within the SAME post. He basically told HIMSELF that he was wrong. It's really been remarkable to watch.

He hasn't done any such thing. lol He just constantly lies in every post so its like arguing with Paul Ryan.

Please post ONE lie. Just ONE. Go ahead. It should be easy to find just one considering that I post lies in every single one of my posts. Go on. We'll even wait for you to take your meds. I'm waiting...

Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not?

Did you originally say that criminals cannot acquire guns? YES. Did you later on say that criminals can acquire guns legally 10% of the time? YES. YOU LIED.

YOU ARE NOW LYING ABOUT HAVING LIED.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yeah. He tends to do that.

I knew Manos would respond to Pete's great effort with a one liner that avoided addressing anything.

He tends to do that too. You've actually elegantly described about 90% of his posts in this thread.

nothing but dust remains. this post needs to be strung up on the town gates with a sign around in.

But haven't you heard? I LIED.

As what that Pete is a bit off his rocker his underlining and holding? Yeah, I agree with you there.

Curse you, Manos! In one fell swoop, you have COMPLETELY invalidated my argument!

No, that's what Pete's been doing especially over the 50 cal rifle fuckup he made and got caught on.

Except I never made that claim. The guy in the video said it. I simply quoted it. And if by dodging, you mean that I admitted that I don't know whether it can or can't do what the guy in the video claimed, then yeah, that's what I've been doing. That, and tearing you a new one the size of Utah. Oh, and speaking of tearing you a new one:

http://www.vpc.org/graphics/50Helicopters.pdf

THE THREAT POSED TO HELICOPTERS BY 50 CALIBER ANTI-ARMOR SNIPER RIFLES

Violence Policy Center
The Violence Policy Center (VPC) is a national non-profit educational organization that conducts
research and public education on firearms violence and provides information and analysis to
policymakers, journalists, advocates, and the general public. The Center examines the role of firearms
in America, analyzes trends and patterns in firearms violence, and works to develop policies to reduce
gun-related death and injury. This report was authored by VPC Senior Policy Analyst Tom Diaz. This
report was funded in part with the support of The David Bohnett Foundation, The California Wellness
Foundation, The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, The George Gund Foundation, The Joyce
Foundation, and, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Violence Policy Center, 1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
202-822-8200 phone, 202-822-8205 fax, www.vpc.org web
©August 2004, Violence Policy Center
a This report is excerpted from two more detailed Violence Policy Center reports: “Just Like
Bird Hunting”—The Threat to Civil Aviation from 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles (January 2003), and Really
Big Guns: Even Bigger Lies—The Violence Policy Center’s Response to the Fifty Caliber Institute’s
Misrepresentations (March 2004), both available online at www.vpc.org.

The accuracy of the Model 82A1 makes possible the placement of the shot in the
most vulnerable area of the target. The compressor sections of jet engines or the
transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of
destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area.
—Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. brochure advertising its Model
82A1 50 caliber sniper rifle

Helicopters Are Ideal Targets for 50 Caliber Anti-Armor Sniper Rifles Easily Available
in the U.S. Civilian Market

Reports on recent discoveries of the terrorist group al Qaeda’s interest in
helicopters emphasize their potential use as flying bombs or vehicles for airborne
terrorist attacks.1

However helicopters are themselves targets that are extremely
vulnerable to ground fire from 50 caliber anti-armor rifles, which are sold freely in the
United States. Since helicopters are generally acknowledged to be difficult to fly,2
authorities and the American public should also consider the threat of a direct attack
on helicopters from these heavy sniper rifles.a Under federal law, anyone at least 18
years old who can pass the rudimentary Brady Law background check can legally buy
one of these rifles. Military grade armor-piercing and armor-piercing incendiary
ammunition is legally sold by ammunition dealers—including at least one 50 caliber
rifle manufacturer—over the phone and through the Internet.

The Danger of New Forms of Attacks Against Aviation by Terrorists Using 50 Caliber
Anti-Armor Sniper Rifles
As authorities strengthen screening aimed at airline passengers, visitors,
explosives, and firearms, the security perimeter is pushed out from the airport
terminal. Terrorists will look for ways to attack from beyond the expanded perimeter.
Thus, the 2,000 yard effective range of the 50 caliber sniper rifle becomes painfully
relevant, because it is an easily obtained weapon to attack with great effect from
beyond the security perimeter. As the leading manufacturer, Barrett Firearms
Manufacturing, itself states in a promotional brochure, its 50 caliber anti-armor sniper
rifle “has the ability to engage the enemy at ranges far beyond those at which small
arms can return fire.”3

b Hogg served 27 years in the British Army’s Royal Artillery, the final six as Regimental
Sergeant Major and instructor in ammunition and ordnance at the Royal Military College. Retiring as
a Master Gunner, he was subsequently editor of Jane’s Infantry Weapons for 22 years, and has
authored or edited more than 140 books. Ian V. Hogg and John S. Weeks, Military Small Arms of the
20th Century (7th Edition) (Krause Publications, Wisconsin, 2000), back cover. The National Rifle
Association describes him as “acclaimed” in its promotion of Military Small Arms on its Internet web
site. See, http://store.nrahq.org, downloaded July 31, 2002.
2

Specifically Designed to Destroy Aircraft and Helicopters
The 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle was designed in large part specifically to
destroy aircraft from long range, beyond a security perimeter. Thus, gun expert Ian
V. Hoggb described the weapon’s initial reception:
The Barrett company were the first to introduce a production .50 sniping
rifle, when this weapon appeared in 1983. There was a good deal of
scepticism at the thought of using such a heavy weapon for sniping but,
after Barrett pointed out that the object was to wreck several million
dollars’ worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars’ worth of cartridge,
the whole thing began to make more sense and the idea spread.4
Hogg’s description is borne out by early Barrett promotional material that
directly stated the new anti-armor rifle’s usefulness against aviation targets. For
example, an undated brochure (apparently, however, from about 1984), obtained from
Barrett’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) licensing file
states:

The Model 82A1 is designed to provide extreme accuracy at extended
ranges with standard military ammunition....The accuracy of the Model
82A1 makes possible the placement of the shot in the most vulnerable
area of the target. The compressor sections of jet engines or the
transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it
capable of destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit
delivered to a vital area. The cost-effectiveness of the Model 82A1
cannot be overemphasized when a round of ammunition purchased for
less than 10 USD can be used to destroy or disable a modern jet
aircraft.5

The same brochure boasts that the accuracy of the 50 caliber sniper rifle
“enables it to place more rounds on target in the same time than the M2HB [machine
gun] firing full automatic while expending approximately one third of the ammunition.”6
c According to the back page of The Ultimate Sniper, Major John L. Plaster, USAR (Ret.),
was decorated four times for heroism in Vietnam, where he served with the top secret special
operations unit known as the Studies and Observation Group (SOG).

The Particular Vulnerability of Helicopters
Helicopters among all aviation targets are particularly vulnerable to 50 caliber
sniper rifle fire. The U.S. Army, for example, notes that as of 1984 the Afghan
Mujahideen resistance fighters “were credited with shooting down close to 300 Soviet
helicopters using small arms and anti-tank weapons.”7 It should be noted that this
record was achieved against military helicopters, many of which are armored, and
before the United States began supplying the thoroughly effective Stinger ground-to-air
missile to the Mujahideen.

The 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle represents a serious threat to helicopters.
In fact, the Barrett Internet web site includes a posting of a 1994 article about the
company that states that one Barrett model, the M82A2 “bullpup” design, was
“conceived in 1987, reportedly for use against helicopters in Afghanistan.”8 The rifle’s
design—configured to be fired from the shoulder, as opposed from a prone position
—would make it more effective for this purpose.9 Although the M82A2 is no longer
in production, Barrett manufactures a similar bullpup model, the M95. The company’s
Internet web site description of the model M95 includes a downloadable video in
which a shooter demonstrates rapidly firing the Model 90, an earlier version of the
current Model 95, from the shoulder.10

Sniper Experts on Helicopter Vulnerability to 50 Caliber Sniper Fire
Major John L. Plaster—a leading sniping expert—directly addressed the
vulnerability of helicopters to sniper fire in his text on sniping techniques and
equipment, The Ultimate Sniper: An Advanced Training Manual for Military & Police
Snipers.c “A military sniper employs armor piercing bullets when engaging helicopters
and other thin-skinned materiel targets.”11

Caliber Shooters Association work with the McMillan Sniper School staff to provide 50 caliber sniper
rifle training (http://www.sniperschool.org).
4
Another expert, British military senior sniper Mark Spicer, wrote about the
vulnerability of helicopters in more detail in his book Sniper: The techniques and
equipment of the deadly marksman.d Spicer appeared as the prosecution’s expert
witness on sniping in the 2003 criminal trial of Beltway sniper John Allen
Muhammad.12 His book is strongly endorsed by principal figures in the fervently progun
Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI).
Helicopters are notoriously easy to disable or destroy. With armorpiercing
incendiary ammunition, the sniper is more than capable of
bringing down a hovering helicopter. Even with normal sniper ball
ammunition, a helicopter can be disabled with a well-placed shot into its
engine or rotor area....
Support helicopters at the hover or while slow moving are also very
easily engaged by snipers. Again the placing of an AP [armor-piercing]
or API [armor-piercing incendiary] round, or even a standard ball round,
into the fuel area of one of these aircraft is going to really ruin the crew’s
day.13

In fact, Spicer’s book—which is “highly recommended” by the McMillan Sniper
School—includes a photograph of the author “‘engaging’ low flying helicopters” as a
sniper in a military training exercise.14
5
U.S. government expert witness Sergeant-Major Mark Spicer demonstrates
“‘engaging’ low flying helicopters” in his book Sniper.
The vulnerability of helicopters to ground fire from small arms has been reemphasized
during recent combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.15 “They fly low,
they fly slow, and people shoot at them,” explained a defense analyst.16 “We come
in slow and land, and that is where most of our losses were in Afghanistan,” a U.S.
Army special operations aviator said. “There is no defense against an RPG (rocket
propelled grenade) or small arms, if they are in the right place or you are in the wrong
place at the wrong time, nothing can defeat that.”17 Note the aviator’s clear
distinction between RPG’s and small arms, and his deliberate inclusion of small arms
as a serious threat to helicopters.
The ultimate point is, of course, that if armored helicopters flown by well-trained
military pilots are vulnerable to snipers in combat, how much more vulnerable to
ruthless terrorists armed with easily obtained 50 caliber sniper rifles are civilian
helicopters carrying government dignitaries, business executives, commuters, or
sightseers?

Thanks for harping incessantly about this irrelevant point, Manos! You made me want to look into it where previously I hadn't given a shit. Congratulations. I'm constantly amazed at how often you shoot yourself in the foot with your own posts. Please continue to make a fool out of yourself...

Manos: YOU said that a .50 caliber sniper rifle cannot take down a helicopter. YOU WERE WRONG. YOU LIED.

No, not in the least, you should try reading my old posts. Like the ones where you get clowned for trying to pass off the Good Friday Disarmament Accords as normal legislative acts.

I think that YOU need to read your old posts.



Guys: Nobody noticed anything interesting about my post #664?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

VPC? The Violence Policy Center...really? Oh man this why I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

 

[Seeds]

So I assume Manos is now posting from his mobile in the cinema.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So I assume Manos is now posting from his mobile in the cinema.

Passed on the screening as I didn't have enough time to get there after feeding my daughter, who like all young children decided to wake up before. Left and before her mom was up. Lol. I'll just see it tomorrow. That said with the amount of money Dredd made I doubt it would be too much of a problem.

That said I'm done with Pete after he posted his ranting and raving citing to the Violence Policy Center, so I guess if Pete feels he won by using lies and dodges, congrats to him!

 

[Delusibeta]

That said I'm done with Pete after he posted his ranting and raving citing to the Violence Policy Center, so I guess if Pete feels he won by using lies and dodges, congrats to him!

And once again, never admits he might possibly be wrong.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Passed on the screening as I didn't have enough time to get there after feeding my daughter, who like all young children decided to wake up before. Left and before her mom was up. Lol. I'll just see it tomorrow. That said with the amount of money Dredd made I doubt it would be too much of a problem.

That said I'm done with Pete after he posted his ranting and raving citing to the Violence Policy Center, so I guess if Pete feels he won by using lies and dodges, congrats to him!

Still waiting for you to post JUST ONE of these lies. And are there ANY sources that are EVER acceptable to you? Do you realize that EVERY time that somebody provides proof that you are wrong, ALL that you do is say that the source is invalid?

Here's a source: YOU. Do you accept YOU as a source, Manos? Because I simply copied and pasted YOUR OWN WORDS as my source. So are you saying now that we cannot trust you as a source of information? Do you actually DENY that you posted what I copied and pasted in my long post? Do you actually DENY that those are YOUR OWN WORDS?

And once again, never admits he might possibly be wrong.

When one possesses the superhuman ability to move goalposts, one is never wrong.

 

[Amir0x]

my god, Manos. Shameless. At least when I was caught with my pants down I immediately admitted it and said I was wrong; you're just, like, doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the same shit where PeteZaTheHutt continually quotes you word for word and you say he's lying.

And then you tried to dodge out of the debate originally by saying you had a screening of Dredd and so that magically meant you didn't have time to address the so-called 'lies', and now magically you had problems and so now conveniently his lies are just so intense you're going to not bother responding to them, because that's how it is! At this point I'm going to hazard a guess and say the screening never existed and you were using it to parachute out of posting responsibility, and now that the time expired on that excuse you're just trying to adjust your goals once more.

Seriously, Manos, just give it up. Literally 98% of the topic has posted in excruciating detail about how you're wrong, and PeteZaTheHutt - God bless his soul at this point, if God exists - has been forced to try to open your eyes by painstakingly pulling apart every single line and quote you've made to show how you've been deceptive/moving the goal posts, and you're STILL SAYING HE IS LYING.



Let me tell you how fucked up this is. It's one thing to say he's misleading, "and here's why." But you're taking someone who has clearly spent over an hour of his own time spelling out in the most elaborate detail why he feels a certain way a "liar", and then you refuse - absolutely refuse - to point out even one single fucking lie. Do you realize how fucked up that is, dude? It's gotta be one of the worst, most shameless posting techniques I've ever seen, and I've seen some shit.

No matter whether it's "worth your time" to debate with a "Paul Ryan-esque liar", pretty much everyone else in this topic would like to see what you are clearly seeing in your "bubble", and yet you're refusing an explanation for everyone else too.


You're an unintellectual ideologue without any honor - yeah, this shit is so bad you've fucked up your goddamn honor, 14th century style - and who is so fucking gutless, so absolutely jelly-spined that you've tried to hide behind your daughter and your wife to get out of responsibility. I'm surprised you didn't just say "and here's my little daughter to take the holds for me in this debate cause I have to, uh, USE THE BATHROOM!" And then leave a pathetic trail of dust behind you as you float over to other topics to try to get people to forget precisely how disgusting you have acted here.

 

[Jackpot]

I'm beginning to lose faith in the mods.

 

[Danne-Danger]

this shit is so bad you've fucked up your goddamn honor, 14th century style - and who is so fucking gutless, so absolutely jelly-spined that you've tried to hide behind your daughter and your wife to get out of responsibility.

That was amazing.

Anyway, if Manos is a real person -- and not just a troller with too much time on his hands -- then this thread could be used for at least a dozen psychological research papers. Truly extraordinary.

 

[Amir0x]

Manos is a real person, he acts pretty much sane in most other topics. But on gun control? It's, like, Frankenstein.

I'm beginning to lose faith in the mods.

The mods are good people. It's Saturday and everyone tends to be less active on Saturday, plus it's a huge forum with a billion topics so it takes time to find offensive posts if people aren't directing them to it, plus judging by Hitokage's comment in the other topic he is aware of the situation and is monitoring it. If they are keeping him around, it's for a reason... or else they are just letting him hang himself more.

Plus, we don't need to backseat mod in any event. Whatever happens is not really our concern. And seriously, I'd rather him not be banned... would GAF be nearly as entertaining without people like this?

 

[Suairyu]

would GAF be nearly as entertaining without people like this?

Yes.

 

[Amir0x]

meh, i like to stare directly into the face of crazy. I was reading through this thread with breakneck speed trying to consume the next bit of crazy

 

[tci]

Stupid decision if you ask me. Its like we are moving backwards in time. I would quit that school in no time.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

YESSS! Thanks!

Once again why would someone in the UK have a rocket launcher?

Why the FUCK would somebody in the US have a .50 caliber sniper rifle that's capable of taking down a helicopter?

 

[Delusibeta]

Why the FUCK would somebody in the US have a .50 caliber sniper rifle that's capable of taking down a helicopter?

And more to the point, why is it available for sale in the US? I don't care about the hoops you have to jump through, it's theoretically possible to go into a gun shop and (assuming you've jumped through the hoops already) come out with a sniper rifle that can take down a helicopter.

 

[Raonak]

Ya know, i live in NZ, and i used to think the police were stupid for not carrying guns.
now i quite appreciate it.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

VPC? The Violence Policy Center...really? Oh man this why I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

"The accuracy of the Model 82A1 makes possible the placement of the shot in the
most vulnerable area of the target. The compressor sections of jet engines or the
transmissions of helicopters are likely targets for the weapon, making it capable of
destroying multi-million dollar aircraft with a single hit delivered to a vital area."
—Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. brochure advertising its Model
82A1 50 caliber sniper rifle

So you're saying that the people who MAKE THE GUN are lying?

The 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifle was designed in large part specifically to
destroy aircraft from long range, beyond a security perimeter. Thus, gun expert Ian
V. Hoggb described the weapon’s initial reception:
The Barrett company were the first to introduce a production .50 sniping
rifle, when this weapon appeared in 1983. There was a good deal of
scepticism at the thought of using such a heavy weapon for sniping but,
after Barrett pointed out that the object was to wreck several million
dollars’ worth of jet aircraft with one or two dollars’ worth of cartridge,
the whole thing began to make more sense and the idea spread.

Hogg served 27 years in the British Army’s Royal Artillery, the final six as Regimental
Sergeant Major and instructor in ammunition and ordnance at the Royal Military College. Retiring as
a Master Gunner, he was subsequently editor of Jane’s Infantry Weapons for 22 years, and has
authored or edited more than 140 books. Ian V. Hogg and John S. Weeks, Military Small Arms of the
20th Century (7th Edition) (Krause Publications, Wisconsin, 2000), back cover. The National Rifle
Association describes him as “acclaimed” in its promotion of Military Small Arms on its Internet web
site. See, http://store.nrahq.org, downloaded July 31, 2002.
2

So you're saying that GUN EXPERT Ian V. Hogg, whose incredible resume is listed above, is lying? The SAME Ian V. Hogg that your beloved NRA describes as "acclaimed"?


So you're saying that the NRA approves of this source (ie- Hogg), but that's not good enough for Manos?

Major John L. Plaster—a leading sniping expert—directly addressed the
vulnerability of helicopters to sniper fire in his text on sniping techniques and
equipment, The Ultimate Sniper: An Advanced Training Manual for Military & Police
Snipers.c “A military sniper employs armor piercing bullets when engaging helicopters
and other thin-skinned materiel targets.”

According to the back page of The Ultimate Sniper, Major John L. Plaster, USAR (Ret.),
was decorated four times for heroism in Vietnam, where he served with the top secret special
operations unit known as the Studies and Observation Group (SOG). He established a U.S. Army
National Guard sniper school in Minnesota and has taught sniping to law enforcement officers from
more than 50 departments and agencies. An Internet web site run by Navy SEAL Team One veteran
Brian Curle says Plaster “is acknowledged as the country’s premier authority on the subject of sniper
fieldcraft, tactics, and training for both police and military snipers” (http://www.navysealteams.com/
dvdultimate.htm). The Ultimate Sniper has received uniformly warm reviews. Minnesota pro-gun
activist David M. Gross called the book “scholarly and detailed” (http://www.wmsa.net/
People/david_gross/dg-021011.htm). A book review by Scott Powers on the Internet website
snipercountry.com enthused, “This book is written by a man who is intimately familiar with the art of
sniping and the training of snipers. If you buy only one book on the subject, THIS IS IT. Period. End
of discussion” (http://www.snipercountry.com/TUS.htm). [Capitals in original.]

So you're saying that SNIPER EXPERT Major John L. Plaster, whose incredible resume is listed above, is lying? The SAME Major John L. Plaster that pro-gun advocates describe as "a man who is intimately familiar with the art of sniping"?


So you're saying that pro-gun advocates approve of this source (ie- Plaster), but that's not good enough for Manos?

Another expert, British military senior sniper Mark Spicer, wrote about the
vulnerability of helicopters in more detail in his book Sniper: The techniques and
equipment of the deadly marksman.d Spicer appeared as the prosecution’s expert
witness on sniping in the 2003 criminal trial of Beltway sniper John Allen
Muhammad.12 His book is strongly endorsed by principal figures in the fervently progun
Fifty Caliber Institute (FCI).
Helicopters are notoriously easy to disable or destroy. With armorpiercing
incendiary ammunition, the sniper is more than capable of
bringing down a hovering helicopter. Even with normal sniper ball
ammunition, a helicopter can be disabled with a well-placed shot into its
engine or rotor area....
Support helicopters at the hover or while slow moving are also very
easily engaged by snipers. Again the placing of an AP [armor-piercing]
or API [armor-piercing incendiary] round, or even a standard ball round,
into the fuel area of one of these aircraft is going to really ruin the crew’s
day.13
In fact, Spicer’s book—which is “highly recommended” by the McMillan Sniper
School—includes a photograph of the author “‘engaging’ low flying helicopters” as a
sniper in a military training exercise.

Sergeant-Major Spicer’s book is one of two “highly recommended” sniper training and
reference books listed on the Internet website of the McMillan Sniper School (http://www.sniper.ws/
Sniper%20Books.htm). The McMillan Sniper School is sponsored by McMillan Bros. Rifles, which loans
50 caliber sniper rifles to the school (http://www.sniperschool.org /Staff%20Bios.htm). Fifty Caliber
Institute treasurer Rock McMillan is a designer and manufacturer who founded McMillan Brothers Rifles
in 1992 (http://www.shootingsports.com/mcmillan/rifle.htm). The Fifty Caliber Institute and the Fifty
Caliber Shooters Association work with the McMillan Sniper School staff to provide 50 caliber sniper
rifle training (http://www.sniperschool.org).

So you're saying that SNIPER EXPERT Mark Spicer, whose incredible resume is listed above, is lying? The SAME Mark Spicer who's book pro-gun advocates describe as "highly recommended"?


So you're saying that pro-gun advocates approve of this source (ie- Spicer), but that's not good enough for Manos?

So we are expected to believe YOU, sniper master Manos, when you flippantly and disrespectfully dismiss EXPERT sources such as:

Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc.
Master Gunner Ian V. Hogg, Regimental Sergeant Major in the British Army's Royal Artillery
Sniper Expert Major John L. Plaster
British Military Senior Sniper, Sergeant-Major Mark Spicer

Who are backed by pro-gun advocates such as:

The NRA
Navy SEAL Team One veteran Brian Curle
Minnesota pro-gun activist David M. Gross
Scott Powers of the Internet website snipercountry.com
the McMillan Sniper School


Manos: You literally IGNORED a VAST number of credible, reputable and respected sources with possibly the most BLATANT, DISRESPECTFUL and WILLFULLY IGNORANT act of hand-waving that I've ever witnessed. Instead, you TRULY believe that ALL of these IMMENSELY VALID sources, all of whom are INFINITELY more knowledgeable than you, are somehow INvalid SOLELY based on the STUPID reason that this incredible quantity and quality of information was COMPILED by and published as a pdf by The Violence Policy Center. The VPC did NOT do this research, they did NOT form these opinions. They simply referenced and compiled the EXPERTISE, EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE of people who are experts in the field of sniper rifles. ALL of which, you flippantly ignored. Your FLAGRANT DISRESPECT for these experts is BEYOND DISGUSTING.

YET AGAIN, MANOS, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

my god, Manos. Shameless. At least when I was caught with my pants down I immediately admitted it and said I was wrong; you're just, like, doubling, tripling and quadrupling down on the same shit where PeteZaTheHutt continually quotes you word for word and you say he's lying.

I don't think that Manos will EVER understand this. You did something wrong, but you admitted your mistake LIKE A MAN and apologized for it. Very few people have the BALLS to do what you did. By doing this, you earned immense amounts of respect from myself and, I'm sure, others on the boards. We ALL make mistakes (except Manos, of course), and what separates those with integrity and morals from the douchebags is possessing the humility to admit when we've made those mistakes. Through his actions in this thread, Manos has shamelessly sacrificed whatever integrity he had in a hopelessly transparent attempt to be "right". On the INTERNET no less. Just think of how much better off the world would be if there were no douchebags.

Seriously, Manos, just give it up. Literally 98% of the topic has posted in excruciating detail about how you're wrong, and PeteZaTheHutt - God bless his soul at this point, if God exists - has been forced to try to open your eyes by painstakingly pulling apart every single line and quote you've made to show how you've been deceptive/moving the goal posts, and you're STILL SAYING HE IS LYING.

Thank you. This thread has been remarkably mindboggling. I've only ever come close to "debating" someone like Manos on another website forum several years ago. Myself and another poster were going at it in a way very similar to what's happened here so far. The other poster then posted, "You are the ipitamy of stupid." Now, normally, I tend not to nitpick spelling or grammar (or at least I try not to) in a post, especially when it's clearly a typo. But it was painfully obvious that "ipitamy" was NO typo. This idiot was moronic enough to question my intelligence and, in the process, embarrassingly misspelled "epitome" in a horribly lame attempt to appear intelligent and sophisticated himself. I mocked him relentlessly for his unintentionally hilarious and ironic post. SEVERAL times I informed him that he did not spell "epitome" correctly and I subsequently typed out the proper spelling for him. As you guessed, instead of simply checking the spelling himself, which would have taken five seconds to do over at dictionary.com, he REPEATEDLY denied that he had misspelled it. He vehemently insisted that "ipitamy" was the correct way to spell it. After more mocking, it was apparent that he eventually DID check the real spelling, and was so embarrassed at his revelation that he was never seen or heard from on the board ever again. So I HAVE seen this phenomenon of willful ignorance and stubbornness before, even including the endpoint where the gutless liar realizes that he IS wrong and subsequently leaves with his ball, but without acknowledging that he was wrong. I just haven't seen it on the sheer SCALE that we've witnessed here.

Let me tell you how fucked up this is. It's one thing to say he's misleading, "and here's why." But you're taking someone who has clearly spent over an hour of his own time spelling out in the most elaborate detail why he feels a certain way a "liar", and then you refuse - absolutely refuse - to point out even one single fucking lie. Do you realize how fucked up that is, dude? It's gotta be one of the worst, most shameless posting techniques I've ever seen, and I've seen some shit.

Yeah, it's pretty spineless.

No matter whether it's "worth your time" to debate with a "Paul Ryan-esque liar", pretty much everyone else in this topic would like to see what you are clearly seeing in your "bubble", and yet you're refusing an explanation for everyone else too.

Pandora's box?

You're an unintellectual ideologue without any honor - yeah, this shit is so bad you've fucked up your goddamn honor, 14th century style - and who is so fucking gutless, so absolutely jelly-spined that you've tried to hide behind your daughter and your wife to get out of responsibility. I'm surprised you didn't just say "and here's my little daughter to take the holds for me in this debate cause I have to, uh, USE THE BATHROOM!" And then leave a pathetic trail of dust behind you as you float over to other topics to try to get people to forget precisely how disgusting you have acted here.

THIS. Oh, and don't worry. I will follow that pathetic trail of dust wherever it leads, and hopefully, others will too. We cannot become complacent. From now on, in any future Manos pro-gun thread that he starts, I am going to copy and paste that long post of mine which, step-by-step, clearly and methodically reveals him for the disingenuous and sniveling fraud that he is. People need to know what they are getting into. I WILL make sure that they find out.

 

[Danne-Danger]

This thread ['University is uneasy as court ruling allows guns on campus'] is now the prime source for information about the Beretta .50 cal sniper rifle.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This thread ['University is uneasy as court ruling allows guns on campus'] is now the prime source for information about the Beretta .50 cal sniper rifle.

Barrett.
http://www.barrettrifles.com/

THIS. Oh, and don't worry. I will follow that pathetic trail of dust wherever it leads, and hopefully, others will too. We cannot become complacent. From now on, in any future Manos pro-gun thread that he starts, I am going to copy and paste that long post of mine which, step-by-step, clearly and methodically reveals him for the disingenuous and sniveling fraud that he is. People need to know what they are getting into. I WILL make sure that they find out.

Look when you use lies cant claim to be revealing anything since its not based on the truth. So I don't know what good pasting lies of yours will do.

Oh Amirox....thank you, one of the best laughs I have had in a long long time. HONOR grrrr. Lol

Pete any time you want to get exposed as a liar and fraud again feel to post in another thread.

 

[DoomGyver]

And more to the point, why is it available for sale in the US? I don't care about the hoops you have to jump through, it's theoretically possible to go into a gun shop and (assuming you've jumped through the hoops already) come out with a sniper rifle that can take down a helicopter.

Just because a person owns one doesn't mean they're capable of taking a helicopter out, at any distance. And at $7-10 per cartridge one isn't going to have much practice unless they have a disposable income. I'm talking 200 cartridges a week of practice in order to pull off a shot like that. Helis travel over 100mph.

sorry for the OT.

 

[Hitokage]

Pete any time you want to get exposed as a liar and fraud again feel to post in another thread.

It's funny how you're not able to do so here despite this being your own thread. I thought you'd be a more stand your ground guy than an obligation to retreat guy.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's funny how you're not able to do so here despite this being your own thread. I thought you'd be a more stand your ground guy than an obligation to retreat guy.

I prefer castle doctrine.

 

[Hitokage]

I prefer castle doctrine.

Just so you know, your actions this past day warrant a ban, but I've given you space to make up for it. So far you have not.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Just so you know, your actions this past day warrant a ban, but I've given you space to make up for it. So far you have not.

If he wants to start a thread and go point by point with me I'd be happy too.

 

[Gisk]

In this thread I see proof that
A. The mods don't do shit and B. Y'all like to argue bout the little details.

(Though saying a .50 cal couldn't shoot down a helo is BS, it's made to stop small armored vehicles, a helo isn't much different)


Also, Amir0x, I thought you were perma'd for trolling that pony thread; what happened?

 

[Hitokage]

If he wants to start a thread and go point by point with me I'd be happy too.

Requiring him to put in even more effort while removing the discussion from its context.

 

[Amir0x]

Also, Amir0x, I thought you were perma'd for trolling that pony thread; what happened?

no, it was always a three week ban(?) until September 3. Since I never commented on the length of the ban, you shouldn't always believe what you read

honestly i pushed things a bit far in that topic into dick territory, but I do stand by my ultimate assessment. Should have just kept it to myself is all.

Pete any time you want to get exposed as a liar and fraud again feel to post in another thread.

My god, just DO IT HERE. Why are you saying you're willing to do this and then in the next sentence say you're completely unwilling to do it in the one place everyone wants to see your explanation for?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Requiring him to put in even more effort while removing the discussion from its context.

The context is the idea of guns in a university, if he would like to discuss that point by point here that's fine, but otherwise if he wants general point by point gun control discussion on that issue, he can use the general gun control thread.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Look when you use lies cant claim to be revealing anything since its not based on the truth. So I don't know what good pasting lies of yours will do.

Your arguments haven't made much sense up to this point, but now they LITERALLY don't make sense. This is gibberish. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase it? Or should I just assume that you cannot find a SINGLE lie that I've posted? I'm going to go with the latter.

I've realized that if you insert "you" between the fifth and sixth words, that it makes more sense. So if that's what you meant to type, then it makes sense. And by sense, I mean that you continue to utilize your trademark ignore and dodge tactics. It doesn't matter if posting my "lies" will do any good. I just asked you to post ONE. That's it. Not lies. LIE. ONE. According to you, this should be easy because that's ALL I DO. How simple can I make this for you? Post one of my lies, Manos. JUST ONE.

Oh Amirox....thank you, one of the best laughs I have had in a long long time. HONOR grrrr. Lol

You really don't get it, do you? He EARNED my respect and gained integrity with his honorable behavior. You LOST my respect and your integrity with your DIShonorable behavior. It's quite obvious that striving for the moral high ground is something that doesn't concern you. You'd rather protect your right to brandish a gun (that you've never used in your entire life) than protect your own integrity.

Pete any time you want to get exposed as a liar and fraud again feel to post in another thread.

You have yet to post ONE SINGLE lie perpetrated by me in this entire 700+ post thread. It takes a VERY special brand of cognitive dissonance to equate this failure with "exposing" me as a liar and fraud. Most sane people would require that at least ONE instance of lying needs to be shown in order for this gaping chasm of cognitive dissonance to be bridged. You have yet to provide such an instance.

sorry for the OT.

No problem. We're used to that here. (haha, not blowing off your post, because you do bring up a good point)

If he wants to start a thread and go point by point with me I'd be happy too.

That's what we're doing HERE. Except you ignore and dodge just about every point that is brought up, especially the ones where your own words contradict each other. Besides, I don't think changing threads would make you happy because going point by point in THIS thread hasn't made you very happy at all. Also, I've already thoroughly dismantled your "arguments"... with YOUR OWN WORDS. Therefore, no need to start another thread. Anyway, I'm a junior, so I don't have thread-starting privileges.


Manos: You didn't answer my question. AGAIN. All of those experts and their supporters that contributed to the .50 caliber sniper rifle pdf... are they LIARS? Are you saying, as expert and knowledgeable sources, that they are INVALID? Are the GUN EXPERTS lying, or are YOU lying? Which is it?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I appreciate the effort you're putting in pete. Most people just give up after a while due to how persistent and stubborn manos is. Interesting to see that when someone gets just as persistent with him he tries to bail out.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Manos: You didn't answer my question. AGAIN. All of those experts and their supporters that contributed to the .50 caliber sniper rifle pdf... are they LIARS? Are you saying, as expert and knowledgeable sources, that they are INVALID? Are the GUN EXPERTS lying, or are YOU lying? Which is it?

Please show me proof of a helicopter shot down in the US by a .50 caliber rifle or for that made even a person murdered with one. The articles discuss hypothetics and theoreticals there is no proof to show that a .50 cal rifle has ever cause a death in the us or shot down a helicopter.

You really don't get it, do you? He EARNED my respect and gained integrity with his honorable behavior. You LOST my respect and your integrity with your DIShonorable behavior.

Do I care? No, if I'd be upset if someone like Amirox had respect for me. It would make me question my behavior personally.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

The context is the idea of guns in a university, if he would like to discuss that point by point here that's fine, but otherwise if he wants general point by point gun control discussion on that issue, he can use the general gun control thread.

UK Diabetic Pen Stabbing Massacre 2012... CONTEXT.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

UK Diabetic Pen Stabbing Massacre 2012... CONTEXT.

You are the one who kept switching topics. If you want to discuss the issue at hand one topic at a time feel free too.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Please show me proof of a helicopter shot down in the US by a .50 caliber rifle or for that made even a person murdered with one. The articles discuss hypothetics and theoreticals there is no proof to show that a .50 cal rifle has ever cause a death in the us or shot down a helicopter.

You're moving the goalposts again, Manos. You are a veritable broken record. Predictable to the last. I'm not going to let you get away with that bullshit.

YOU originally said that a .50 cal sniper rifle can't shoot down a helicopter. Numerous SNIPER EXPERTS say that it CAN. Easily. SNIPER EXPERTS know more than YOU do, Manos. Really. Or do you think that YOU know more about the SNIPER EXPERTS?

Aw, fuck the experts. Let's check the news: http://www.theage.com.au/world/gunman-kills-eight-brings-down-helicopter-20100120-mkjf.html
I don't know why I'm bothering to post this, because you're just going to say "Bu-bu-bu-bu but they didn't find the gun! LOL! You don't know that it was a .50 cal!" I don't give a shit. The point is that a gun shot down the helicopter. You've moved the goalposts so that only incidents in the U.S. can be mentioned (not sure why this has to be a stipulation). There are a gazillion Google search results with stories of helicopters being shot down in Afghanistan, South America and many other countries by .50 cal rifles and even less powerful guns. THEY prove that .50 cal sniper rifles CAN take down helicopters.


Manos: You didn't answer my question. AGAIN. All of those experts and their supporters that contributed to the .50 caliber sniper rifle pdf... are they LIARS? Are you saying, as expert and knowledgeable sources, that they are INVALID? Are the GUN EXPERTS lying, or are YOU lying? Which is it?

Do I care? No, if I'd be upset if someone like Amirox had respect for me. It would make me question my behavior personally.

We already knew that you don't care about integrity and honesty. This entire debacle is proof of that.

I appreciate the effort you're putting in pete. Most people just give up after a while due to how persistent and stubborn manos is. Interesting to see that when someone gets just as persistent with him he bails out.

The pleasure has been all mine! It makes it all worth it to read posts like yours and Amir0x's and other supportive posters who are sick of these nauseating tactics. People like Manos need to be called out. Too often, people like him utilize these trademark frustration tactics and, as you've pointed out, reasonable posters bail out because you might as well be debating with a toddler. I'm all in at this point. I REFUSE to let bullshit triumph over reason. His reign of stupid is over.

You are the one who kept switching topics. If you want to discuss the issue at hand one topic at a time feel free too.

Saying "I know you are but what am I" over and over again ad nauseam as your go-to rebuttal is not an effective approach when dealing with anyone other than toddlers. FACTS tend to work better. And what do you think I've BEEN trying to do? I've already TRIED the one topic at a time approach. Remember? STEP 1... STEP 2... and then you ignored, dodged, distracted and moved the goalposts multiple times. Remember that post? The one where everyone in this thread will agree was the exact moment at which your bowels evacuated?


Manos: Are you going to post my lies? I just asked you to post ONE. That's it. Not lies. LIE. ONE. According to you, this should be easy because that's ALL I DO. How simple can I make this for you? Post one of my lies, Manos. JUST ONE.

 

[The Adder]

Then why has gun crimes been declining despite loosening gun control laws? I mean this isn't me spouting bullshit check the FBIs uniform crime reports.

Because ALL crime has been declining. What you need to look at is RATE of decline compared to:

A. Other Crimes

and

B. Gun Crimes in other countries.

 

[richiek]

I found this in the Occupy Wall Street thread regarding Manos:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32849152&postcount=9230

and guys, seriously, stop replying to Manos! he will just continue to hinder any form of real discussion by his constant straight from Schopenhauer debate tactics. This are literally textbook techniques meant to dislodge discussion and turn it into a slug fest, which it has turned into any time that he posts. notice that when he is absent, we discuss like adults again? again, every single time you waste synapses trying to muddle through his complex, contradictory and often childish logic and demeanor, you are weakening any form of discourse and the philosophy behind the movement itself.

here's his playbook; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

 

[Chumly]

Manos is a joke character when it comes to gun topics. Once he gets proven wrong he relies on shitty diversion tactics. Then he usually babbles on how he won because hes always right and everyone else lies and hes not going to waste his time with them.

 

[User Name Here]

So have there been any reports of gun fire during class debates?

 

[Jackpot]

Please show me proof of a helicopter shot down in the US by a .50 caliber rifle or for that made even a person murdered with one. The articles discuss hypothetics and theoreticals there is no proof to show that a .50 cal rifle has ever cause a death in the us or shot down a helicopter.

move the goalposts much? Your original point:

The ultimate point is, of course, that if armored helicopters flown by well-trained military pilots are vulnerable to snipers in combat, how much more vulnerable to ruthless terrorists armed with easily obtained 50 caliber sniper rifles are civilian helicopters carrying government dignitaries, business executives, commuters, or sightseers?

Civilian helicopters have no armour and are more fragile than a car. I remember when a news chopper covering a criminal on foot was mistaken for a police chopper and had its engine shot out by a handgun. 50 cal rifle rounds are for anti-material rifles. They take out APC engine blocks.

 

[Demon Lizardman]

Holy Shit, Amir0x is unbanned?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You're moving the goalposts again, Manos. You are a veritable broken record. Predictable to the last. I'm not going to let you get away with that bullshit.

YOU originally said that a .50 cal sniper rifle can't shoot down a helicopter. Numerous SNIPER EXPERTS say that it CAN. Easily. SNIPER EXPERTS know more than YOU do, Manos. Really. Or do you think that YOU know more about the SNIPER EXPERTS?

Aw, fuck the experts. Let's check the news: http://www.theage.com.au/world/gunman-kills-eight-brings-down-helicopter-20100120-mkjf.html
I don't know why I'm bothering to post this, because you're just going to say "Bu-bu-bu-bu but they didn't find the gun! LOL! You don't know that it was a .50 cal!" I don't give a shit. The point is that a gun shot down the helicopter. You've moved the goalposts so that only incidents in the U.S. can be mentioned (not sure why this has to be a stipulation). There are a gazillion Google search results with stories of helicopters being shot down in Afghanistan, South America and many other countries by .50 cal rifles and even less powerful guns. THEY prove that .50 cal sniper rifles CAN take down helicopters.

Has any helicopter ever been shot down in the US with a .50 caliber rifle or any one murdered in the US with a .50 caliber rifle? Posting articles with no proof the weapon used or the term a gazillion google articles does not help your case.

Manos: You didn't answer my question. AGAIN. All of those experts and their supporters that contributed to the .50 caliber sniper rifle pdf... are they LIARS? Are you saying, as expert and knowledgeable sources, that they are INVALID? Are the GUN EXPERTS lying, or are YOU lying? Which is it?

In a report written and edited by the VPC, I suspect all are taken out of content and misused.

We already knew that you don't care about integrity and honesty.[

Coming from the mouth of Amirox...no, and I doubt most on the board do, especially considering the reason he was demodded in the first place and his deplorable personal choices regarding drug use.

 

[Panipal2009]

These are utter strawmen positions. It is on par with me accusing you of intentionally arming felons, or accusing you of blaming 100% of murders on gun control advocates. These are not real positions anyone holds.

No, a strawman is where I attribute statements to you that you haven’t made, or reflect positions you don’t hold, and attack those. There’s no – 0 – strawman arguments in my last post. Shall I demonstrate?

Whose decision should that be? Theirs, or yours (or whoever imposes these laws you desire)?

This right here is a question, not a ‘strawman position’. Care to answer? Whose decision should it be?

Yes, gangbangers contribute nothing to this. It’s 100% the fault of lawful gun owners. Nice ploy, that, where you blame A for what B gets up to, because playing fair by A won’t get you what you want.

This isn’t a ‘strawman’ either, since we know from your own statements that you very much do blame lawful gun owners for what gangs/criminals do with guns.

Furthermore, you've conveniently absolved gun owners of any blame on the matter.

See?

No sorry, there’s no getting around the fact that the gun control movement is driven by fear and panic of what you imagine other people might do. Like when your ilk promises wild West shootouts in the streets every day (that don’t happen) which is nothing more than (trying to whip up) fear and hysteria. Like when your ilk flings around accusations of ‘paranoia’ so often that it becomes plain you’re simply projection your own feelings of fear, that motivate you, to avoid having to face them.

The first part would only be a ‘strawman’ if it were a lie that gun control advocates attempted to whip up hysteria every time a US state was contemplating removing restrictions on concealed or open carry. Which they have.

And the second, well, again, you have indeed dropped the ‘paranoia’ insult in this very thread.

It's the crazy, paranoid thinking among gun owners that lead people to think this.

See?

Whereas you care deeply about the negative effects of gun control/victim disarmament beyond your own personal need to feel (rather than be) safe, right? And that's why you're just full of ideas about how to mitigate the downside of victim disarmament, like the equivalent of gun owners promoting safe gun handling, right?

And this one would only be a ‘strawman’ if I posted that you actually did care about the drawbacks of victim disarmament and felt the necessity to think about how those drawbacks could be reduced. Which you plainly don’t.

You have no need for self-defense. It's the crazy, paranoid thinking among gun owners that lead people to think this. Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying every year to feed this fear.

So now you’re accusing me of making strawman arguments when I quote your own statements (that you still haven’t explained)? SMH.

Seriously, "victim disarmament"? That's about the most loaded phase imaginable.

Yes, you no doubt prefer ‘gun control’ because it’s a better sell. Just as you loathe ‘victim disarmament’ for the way it makes gun confiscation a much harder sell. One description gets you what you want, and the other doesn’t…you’re laughably transparent.

Sorry but, ‘victim disarmament’ is a perfectly legitimate description. Though I can see from your replies to Mammoth Jones that you’d be much, much happier if your side had a monopoly on ideas and the expression thereof.

I have a much better idea. Come up with real arguments. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing with you.

Those are real arguments. However it seems they’re real arguments about areas you seem to feel uncomfortable with discussing. Possibly because you think you’re above discussing the ethics of your own support for victim disarmament? Or because you can't? Which is it?

Oh, that last one was a question. You know, since you're trying to confuse others confused about what constitutes a strawman argument and what doesn't.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Yes, you no doubt prefer ‘gun control’ because it’s a better sell. Just as you loathe ‘victim disarmament’ for the way it makes gun confiscation a much harder sell. One description gets you what you want, and the other doesn’t…you’re laughably transparent.

Sorry but, ‘victim disarmament’ is a perfectly legitimate description. Though I can see from your replies to Mammoth Jones that you’d be much, much happier if your side had a monopoly on ideas and the expression thereof.

"Victim disarmament" is a pretty loaded term though. It implies that every single person who is having their gun confiscated is either already a victim or will be a victim sometime in the future because they no longer have a gun to protect themselves with. Wording it in this way implies that people will be totally helpless without their guns, which isn't the case when you compare the stats between the US and other countries. "Disarmament" is fine, but "victim" seems to me to be pretty sensationalist.

I found this in the Occupy Wall Street thread regarding Manos:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...postcount=9230

Quote:
and guys, seriously, stop replying to Manos! he will just continue to hinder any form of real discussion by his constant straight from Schopenhauer debate tactics. This are literally textbook techniques meant to dislodge discussion and turn it into a slug fest, which it has turned into any time that he posts. notice that when he is absent, we discuss like adults again? again, every single time you waste synapses trying to muddle through his complex, contradictory and often childish logic and demeanor, you are weakening any form of discourse and the philosophy behind the movement itself.

here's his playbook; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

Wow! Reading that list of Schopenhauer debate tactics was one gigantic "mind blown" moment.

 

[EviLore]

Manos needed to be put to pasture eventually with his disingenuous methods, and I'm sure this thread was intensely frustrating for most of the participants, but the end result is a worthwhile read, a thorough dismantling of the pro-gun position from just about every angle.

 

[God...frey Jones]

You're right about that, it was incredibly frustrating seeing his blatant propaganda threads pop up recently, and as soon as anyone attempted to debate him, it descended into silliness. He certainly didn't do much for the pro-gun/second amendment movement, that's for sure.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Shooters go on massive murder sprees on campus everyday in the US!? Holy shit, I would move.

ITP a user who revels in misreading posts because any other response would make him look stupid.

A campus is not magically different from the rest of the world. The authorization of concealed-carry affects the campuses in the same way it does the rest of the world.

I respect the views of people who disagree with this matter - plenty of respect in fact, if only because I'm only a pseudo-professional on this matter - but not people like you, who rely on hyperbole and exaggeration to make their points. "massive murder sprees"? "guns on airplanes"? How many times do we see massive murder sprees on campuses as a result of the legalization of guns on campuses? And why would having firearms on a grounded location where people live and interact result in people being able to carry firearms onto something barreling through the sky, a thing that, if someone were to kill the right people, would come crashing to the ground? There is an immediate danger related to having firearms on an airplane because well-placed shots could easily result in the death of everyone on that plane.

The fact is that these shootings that you're referring to occur because people went around the system put in place to prevent these things from happening.

Far be it from me to act like some kind of expert on the matter, but it's simply unreasonable to imply that this will increase gun violence by any significant degree. Yes, there is the distinct possibility that someone might be missed by the system when they get the legal right to carry a concealed weapon, in spite of the fact that they are not suitable to own a firearm. There also is the very real fact that someone who would do this would also find a way to do this no matter what the law said. The point is that the law isn't preventing dangerous criminals from having guns, it's preventing citizens from having guns.