Support NeoGAF

[HyperionX]

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?

Not quite actually. A strawman is where you attack something similar, usually an exaggeration or caricature, of what I'm saying that is a much weaker or unsupportable position. What you're describing is closer to a red herring.

Since I don't want to go line by line, I'll summarize. The strawmen you are attacking me with appear to be the following:

1) Blaming 100% the fault of legal gun owners on crime
2) Accusing the gun control movement of being hysterical in the same way gun owners have become paranoid
3) "Victim Disarmament"

I have blamed legal gun owners as part of the problem, but not 100%. While some gun control advocates have made hysterical claims, they are much much less in scale compared what gun owners have said. I don't recall a single person in this thread claiming that allowing concealed guns on campus will turn colleges into the wild west or mean there will be daily shootings (Side note: the wild west wasn't as violent as hollywood portrayed). On other hand, a few in this thread claiming they need a gun to defend themselves or feel safe, which really is paranoid. And the last, "victim disarmament" is clearly just a load term. It does not describe the situation in the same way the phrase "gun control" does. Obviously, we are trying to stop gun crimes first and foremost, not to enable it.

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

I'd imagine the police or judicial system will have the final say. Unless you're implying someone other than law enforcement agencies will decide, or those are untrustworthy people, I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I nominate PeteZaTheHutt for best Junior Member ever! May all new members be as grand!

 

[Timedog]

*sigh* I'm going to have to read this entire thread, aren't I? Can someone maybe post a link to where it really starts to get good?

 

[God...frey Jones]

*sigh* I'm going to have to read this entire thread, aren't I? Can someone maybe post a link to where it really starts to get good?

Er, it never did.

It was basically Manos being a passive-aggressive troll, people becoming increasingly frustrated with his diversion tactics, someone brilliantly proving him wrong, then he got banned.

Wait, it did get good =p

(Reading the last two pages should catch you up).

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

*sigh* I'm going to have to read this entire thread, aren't I? Can someone maybe post a link to where it really starts to get good?

Page 14 is a good start.

 

[marrec]

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.

He did a lot for the pro-Tool movement though. Maynard James Keenen am cry now. I knew his silliness about the second amendment would eventually lead to his permanent removal, which is sad because I actually liked him as a person.

 

[Riposte]

...not by the hand of members will he fall.

"I am no member"

 

[SteveWinwood]

He never did give me data about the accuracy of carriers... which would have completely destroyed his point so...

After I asked him 5 times over 200 posts for it and he accused me of dodging him 4 times over about 30 posts.

He was kind of silly.

 

[Messypandas]

Page 14 is a good start.

...*sigh*

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

...*sigh*

100 posts is too many posts, gorramit.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I do hope Manos gets unbanned.

Manos, if you're reading this:

I did not lie. My point was that, regardless of whether or not someone could legally sell me a gun.... they can sell me a gun easily and with little risk or oversight (regardless of legality), and the law is basically unenforcable unless they incriminate themselves.

States mostly don't track the distribution of guns once they leave retailers (no registration requirements).

Nor do they typically need to be involved in the transfer of firearms between private individuals.

Nor can they audit individuals to check for illegal possession of firearms or carrying without a permit thanks to the 4th amendment.


So what if the law says you can't sell your gun to a convicted felon? The state doesn't even require you to tell them what gun(s) you have, if you're selling them, or who you're you're selling them to in private. The only way they'd find out you sold your gun to a convicted felon is if you went out of your way to tell them.

There are practically no barriers in place to prevent people from legally or illegally obtaining firearms, or being irresponsible or unsafe with them, because the NRA has successfully lobbied and sued against such regulations as 2nd amendment violations. You can't even require guns be stored unloaded or with a trigger lock. Basically, you can't regulate the general accessibility to guns since it is an individual right, yet you can selectively and arbitrarily restrict and prohibit certain sections of the population from this right (but again, you can't do so in a way that restricts accessibility in general).

The result? we discourage gun crime, but do nothing to prevent it.

It's almost like we think government should have very limited tools through which it can regulate or restrict civilian weaponry, regardless of whether or not such weaponry comes at the expense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Panipal2009]

1) Blaming 100% the fault of legal gun owners on crime…
I have blamed legal gun owners as part of the problem, but not 100%.

If you genuinely acknowledged the part unlawful gun owners (criminals/gang members) played in making US gun murders as high as they are, you’d have far, far less reason to target the lawful gun owners. But instead, you blithely ignore their contribution. You seem to believe lawful gun owners should be targetted more than the ones committing the lion’s share of that gun violence.

2) Accusing the gun control movement of being hysterical…While some gun control advocates have made hysterical claims, they are much much less in scale compared what gun owners have said. I don't recall a single person in this thread claiming that allowing concealed guns on campus will turn colleges into the wild west or mean there will be daily shootings (Side note: the wild west wasn't as violent as hollywood portrayed).

Funny, that’s not actually what I said.

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.

If you’re going to go about saying I’m using ‘strawman’ arguments, you probably shouldn’t pull stunts like that.

So now you can move on to telling us how ‘some gun control advocates’ making hysterical claims means that gun control advocates are guided by rationality and not plain fear.

3) "Victim Disarmament"
On other hand, a few in this thread claiming they need a gun to defend themselves or feel safe, which really is paranoid.

There you go with the name-calling again. How mature. You’re not making some cutting incisive remark (and everyone knows it, even people who agree with you), you’re being an asshole.

And the last, "victim disarmament" is clearly just a load term.

Translation: It doesn’t make gun bans sound like sunshine and rainbows the way ‘gun control’ does, so you don’t like it.

It does not describe the situation in the same way the phrase "gun control" does.

Oh, it most certainly describes what it means for people on an individual level i.e. if they find themselves confronted with violence (no matter how unlikely you think it might be) your ideals do them no favours whatsoever. ‘Victim disarmament’ perfectly describes how in such situations your ideals would leave them in the shit.

Obviously, we are trying to stop gun crimes first and foremost, not to enable it.

Um no, not true. Remember that infamous comment Diane Fienstien made some years back? About how if she had the power, she’d make Mr & Mrs America (you’ll note that she didn’t say violent gangs) turn their guns in? It’s about disempowerment and exercising coercive power over everyone else. That’s not a high-minded motive.

I'd imagine the police or judicial system will have the final say. Unless you're implying someone other than law enforcement agencies will decide, or those are untrustworthy people, I don't see how this is relevant.

Dear me, you must have forgotten what the original question was.

There is not much evidence that owning a gun will reduce the chance of being killed in a crime or provide meaningful self-defence.

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

So you’ve as good as said that other people should make the decision for someone as to whether they’re able to make their own chances at self-defence. Of course the only just answer, since, you know, it’s their life, is that it should be their decision, not some overarching authority that deems it expedient to sacrifice them to gain this desired result or that.

Lastly, do you think you could explain WTF this piece of insanity actually means?

You have no need for self-defense.

I'll keep asking until you do.

 

[Funky Papa]

Whoa, I just leant from the "Consistently Banned Gaffers" thread that somebody quoted me. May as well pass by and clear a couple of things regarding laws and what not.

I am from Spain an here NOBODY has guns. I have never seeen a gun in my life. I don't know anyone who has one. We don't have gun stores anywhere, I haver never seen one. Hell, I don't even know where to buy a gun if I wanted to.

If we are talking about rifles and shotguns, Spain has tons of hunters. They are hardly invisible, too. Shit, even Corte Ingles sells and repairs guns. As for handguns, there are more owners that you could possibly imagine, but since guns have such a terrible image in Spain (I blame the dictatorship, terrorism and dumbass politicians) most people tend to keep it secret, lest not be labeled as blood thristy psychos. So...

Most of those handguns are owned by criminals

this is simply not true. IIRC my local shooting club (by no means a large one) has over 1,000 registered members. They are just very, very quiet about it.

.

In Spain alone:

Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun.

Firearms must be registered and inspected annually.

Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols.

That information is not correct. Sporting licenses (which are the most common) allow up to ten short or long barreled weapons, but those shooters with a tier 3 license can only own one small caliber gun (pretty much .22lr to 9x19mm). You are promoted to tier 2 and tier 1 by showing a higher proficency during official competitions. With each promotion you are allowed to purchase an increasing amount of guns. Right now I'm training to get that sweet T2 license (up to six firearms) and say hello to this beauty

Also, imitation guns are legal observing certain restrictions (ie: can't be easily modified to fire).

Even if there are people with guns in Spain, there's so many laws against using one that you can't even use it in self-defense.

This is kind of true. You can use them, but there's a chance you may stumble into an asshole judge that will nail you for excessive use of force even if the assaulter is armed. It is somewhat rare, as for the most part they tend to side with the assaulted, but the risk is still real. Basically you are only allowed to use a comparable level of force against the assaulter and only if lives are in peril, which is hard to demonstrate.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

Whoa, I just leant from the "Consistently Banned Gaffers" thread that somebody quoted me. May as well pass by and clear a couple of things regarding laws and what not.



If we are talking about rifles and shotguns, Spain has tons of hunters. They are hardly invisible, too. Shit, even Corte Ingles sells and repairs guns. As for handguns, there are more owners that you could possibly imagine, but since guns have such a terrible image in Spain (I blame the dictatorship, terrorism and dumbass politicians) most people tend to keep it secret, lest not be labeled as blood thristy psychos. So...


this is simply not true. IIRC my local shooting club (by no means a large one) has over 1,000 registered members. They are just very, very quiet about it.


That information is not correct. Sporting licenses (which are the most common) allow up to ten short or long barreled weapons, but those shooters with a tier 3 license can only own one small caliber gun (pretty much .22lr to 9x19mm). You are promoted to tier 2 and tier 1 by showing a higher proficency during official competitions. With each promotion you are allowed to purchase an increasing amount of guns. Right now I'm training to get that sweet T2 license (up to six firearms) and say hello to this beauty



Also, imitation guns are legal observing certain restrictions (ie: can't be easily modified to fire).


This is kind of true. You can use them, but there's a chance you may stumble into an asshole judge that will nail you for excessive use of force even if the assaulter is armed. It is somewhat rare, as for the most part they tend to side with the assaulted, but the risk is still real. Basically you are only allowed to use a comparable level of force against the assaulter and only if lives are in peril, which is hard to demonstrate.

Thanks for clarifying things, FP. Oh, and even though I'm a gun-control advocate, that is one FRIKKIN' bad ass looking gun! James Bondish right there. No no no no no... guns... BAD! (still looks sweet!)

 

[Amir0x]

That information is not correct. Sporting licenses (which are the most common) allow up to ten short or long barreled weapons, but those shooters with a tier 3 license can only own one small caliber gun (pretty much .22lr to 9x19mm). You are promoted to tier 2 and tier 1 by showing a higher proficency during official competitions. With each promotion you are allowed to purchase an increasing amount of guns. Right now I'm training to get that sweet T2 license (up to six firearms) and say hello to this beauty

That's an interesting approach. Because it demands that you prove you know how to handle the things if you want to own more, thus ensuring that at least in theory the more responsible gun owners would end up with more guns. I just went and read an article on gun control laws around the world and that's where I got the Spain information. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[HyperionX]

If you genuinely acknowledged the part unlawful gun owners (criminals/gang members) played in making US gun murders as high as they are, you’d have far, far less reason to target the lawful gun owners. But instead, you blithely ignore their contribution. You seem to believe lawful gun owners should be targetted more than the ones committing the lion’s share of that gun violence.

Does it matter who is more at fault? Once you've admit that lawful gun owners share the blame, you must also admit that some regulation is needed controlling their actions. And it is not unfair to target them specifically. After, every law enforcement officer goes after criminals every day, but in the US we have nearly totally ignore the legal owners contribution to the problem.

Funny, that’s not actually what I said.

If you’re going to go about saying I’m using ‘strawman’ arguments, you probably shouldn’t pull stunts like that.

So now you can move on to telling us how ‘some gun control advocates’ making hysterical claims means that gun control advocates are guided by rationality and not plain fear.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. It's pretty clear that there are very rational reasons to regulate guns much more than we have today. Just because a handful of gun control advocates have overreacted doesn't mean much.

There you go with the name-calling again. How mature. You’re not making some cutting incisive remark (and everyone knows it, even people who agree with you), you’re being an asshole.

Translation: It doesn’t make gun bans sound like sunshine and rainbows the way ‘gun control’ does, so you don’t like it.

Oh, it most certainly describes what it means for people on an individual level i.e. if they find themselves confronted with violence (no matter how unlikely you think it might be) your ideals do them no favours whatsoever. ‘Victim disarmament’ perfectly describes how in such situations your ideals would leave them in the shit.

Um no, not true. Remember that infamous comment Diane Fienstien made some years back? About how if she had the power, she’d make Mr & Mrs America (you’ll note that she didn’t say violent gangs) turn their guns in? It’s about disempowerment and exercising coercive power over everyone else. That’s not a high-minded motive.

At this point I'm going to use another mean word to describe your opinion: Delusional.

No one is trying to leave people at the mercy of gangbangers. From the very beginning the point was that owning guns adds little to nothing to your personal safety while dramatically increasing the murder rate. Society is safer without large numbers of guns floating around. The fact that you think Diane Feinstein wants to disempower people is pretty heavy nonsense.

Dear me, you must have forgotten what the original question was.

So you’ve as good as said that other people should make the decision for someone as to whether they’re able to make their own chances at self-defence. Of course the only just answer, since, you know, it’s their life, is that it should be their decision, not some overarching authority that deems it expedient to sacrifice them to gain this desired result or that.

You lose your personal freedoms when it kills people. This is why we have seat belts and drunk driving is banned.

Lastly, do you think you could explain WTF this piece of insanity actually means?

I'll keep asking until you do.

Must be a typo or something. Maybe I meant no need for a gun for self-defense.

 

[HyperionX]

That's an interesting approach. Because it demands that you prove you know how to handle the things if you want to own more, thus ensuring that at least in theory the more responsible gun owners would end up with more guns. I just went and read an article on gun control laws around the world and that's where I got the Spain information. Thanks for the clarification.

I believe is the norm for most of Europe. If you can justify it, and prove you can safely own and operate one, and are willing to put up with a lot of police oversight, you can have as many guns as you can in the US.

This is usually a few percent of the population however, mainly relatively wealthy families with a tradition of hunting or sports competition.

 

[789shadow]

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.

PetzatheHutt deserves early member status at least.

 

[Cyan]

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

Lost amongst the rubble of Manos' reputation, but yes. Clever.

 

[AstroNut325]

Thanks for clarifying things, FP. Oh, and even though I'm a gun-control advocate, that is one FRIKKIN' bad ass looking gun! James Bondish right there. No no no no no... guns... BAD! (still looks sweet!)

I only read some of the posts between you and Manos in the last couple of pages... and I must say....

You're a better man than me! Gun control (or lack there of), health care (lack there of), and utter disregard for the sciences and math are the three things I absolutely hate about this country.

 

[ghst]

sticky this thread. seeing a shitposter get ruthlessly dismantled in such a ruthlessly exhaustive fashion, regardless of the context of the debate, is something everyone can learn from.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Like I said, I'm definitely pro-Second Amendment. I fundamentally believe a person should have the right to protect themselves. Of course there are limits to all freedoms. There's a debate in this thread on where that limit lies. I also believe that each county/state should make laws that best suit them. I happen to live in a "heavy" gun control state (NY). Not too crazy about the restrictions because they do nothing that would stop a crime. At all. Nothing. But at the end of the day as a society it's a discussion we need to continue to have.

As for Manos...I really liked his threads & I hope he's not perma'd. I also found them interested and yea, he had his beliefs just like we all do about a wide variety of subjects. Don't be so quick to judge just because he held a position you disagreed with or didn't like his debating style.

Manos, my dude if ya reading this...this one's for you homie!

 

[Cyan]

As for Manos...I really liked his threads & I hope he's not perma'd. I also found them interested and yea, he had his beliefs just like we all do about a wide variety of subjects. Don't be so quick to judge just because he held a position you disagreed with or didn't like his debating style.

I liked Manos a lot outside of gun/OWS arguments. Generally a good guy, and interesting to talk to. And I try not to judge people for holding different positions on issues where reasonable people can disagree.

But you're goddamn right I'm going to judge people based on debating style. Manos' style of arguing in this thread (and in the OWS thread, at least before I stopped reading it at all because he ruined it so utterly) is to be both unreasonable and unrelenting, and the combination makes it all but impossible to hold any kind of discussion. This is a good way to win arguments by attrition, but it makes for a shitty experience for everyone else.

The one thing that really shocked me in this thread was PeteZa's willingness to actually sift through and point out his bullshit.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

This is why I love NeoGAF. I've had similar frustrating debates in the past on other forums, but I've never before received the awesome encouragement and support from other posters like people have shown me here. The ridiculous amount of time that I thought I had wasted responding to Manos is now suddenly... not wasted. Thanks, guys...

 

[Chumly]

I liked Manos a lot outside of gun/OWS arguments. Generally a good guy, and interesting to talk to. And I try not to judge people for holding different positions on issues where reasonable people can disagree.

But you're goddamn right I'm going to judge people based on debating style. Manos' style of arguing in this thread (and in the OWS thread, at least before I stopped reading it at all because he ruined it so utterly) is to be both unreasonable and unrelenting, and the combination makes it all but impossible to hold any kind of discussion. This is a good way to win arguments by attrition, but it makes for a shitty experience for everyone else.

The one thing that really shocked me in this thread was PeteZa's willingness to actually sift through and point out his bullshit.

I think this hits it pretty spot on. Any and all gun control threads Manos would "win" through attrition, misinformation and being completely unreasonable. He would openly dismiss any information he did not like since it didn't come from Manos approved sources.

 

[speculawyer]

But you're goddamn right I'm going to judge people based on debating style. Manos' style of arguing in this thread (and in the OWS thread, at least before I stopped reading it at all because he ruined it so utterly) is to be both unreasonable and unrelenting, and the combination makes it all but impossible to hold any kind of discussion. This is a good way to win arguments by attrition, but it makes for a shitty experience for everyone else.

The one thing that really shocked me in this thread was PeteZa's willingness to actually sift through and point out his bullshit.

I got a 2 month ban because I would not fall to attrition in an argument.

 

[Timedog]

Oh god, Manos had a complete meltdown. I wish he would have been banned before ruining the OWS thread (even after promising not to post anymore in the thread, which was undoubtedly a troll tactic).

 

[God...frey Jones]

As for Manos...I really liked his threads & I hope he's not perma'd. I also found them interested and yea, he had his beliefs just like we all do about a wide variety of subjects. Don't be so quick to judge just because he held a position you disagreed with or didn't like his debating style.

Er, that's exactly why I'd judge and thus dislike someone. In Manos' case, he argued in a fashion completely opposed to the tenets of constructive debating. During my lurking days, I always found him petty, disingenuous, spiteful, unable to even attempt to take another perspective into account, and an incredibly poor communicator of ideas. For someone so incomprehensibly opposed to gun control, Manos' entirely failed in highlighting the positives of the second amendment and related pro-gun movement. He would post blatant propaganda pieces, cherry-picked from the news and if (when?) a thread even remotely touched on the issue of guns or gun violence, it would inevitably turn into a bun fight, primarily due to his narcissistic debating style and limp argumentative prowess.

In saying that, I don't think I've ever encountered him outside of gun-related threads, so maybe just the topic of guns brought out the crazy in him.

 

[Jackpot]

During my lurking days, I always found him petty, disingenuous, spiteful, unable to even attempt to take another perspective into account, and an incredibly poor communicator of ideas. For someone so incomprehensibly opposed to gun control, Manos' entirely failed in highlighting the positives of the second amendment and related pro-gun movement. He would post blatant propaganda pieces, cherry-picked from the news and if (when?) a thread even remotely touched on the issue of guns or gun violence, it would inevitably turn into a bun fight, primarily due to his narcissistic debating style and limp argumentative prowess.

Pretty much. Lumped him in with JayDubya and Kosmo. How could we not judge him over this?

 

[LosDaddie]

Simply put, Manos was an agitator. That's how he got his rocks off.

Oh sure, Manos would point out how he agrees with liberal PoliGAF on ~80% of the issues, but he'd spend his time on GAF focusing on that other ~20%. Why? Because he enjoyed agitating people. 2nd Amend./Guns being the obvious example here. Manos knew guns aren't too popular on GAF, and thus would create gun threads (or talk about guns) as much as possible. He'd hide his true intentions behind a "I love guns / the 2nd amend, and want to talk about them" excuse, but it was obvious what he wanted to accomplish.

The Chik Fil A thread was another example of this. Early on, I believe Manos made a few thowaway comments about supporting the boycott, but then went full-on troll mode about how delicious CFA food is over & over. When his ban was over, he boasted in PoliGAF about how he was the reason why the CFA's thread title got changed. Again, being an agitator.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

Reading the last two pages of this thread felt like a workout. I have to imagine that such a effort provided by Manos to be batshit insane on this topic has to be (at least) a tiny bit troll-fueled. It seems like if you really wanted to have a mature and adult debate on this subject, you would take your lumps when starring such a defeat in the face and move onto the next battle. After-all, a topic like gun control is never completely cut and dry. I noticed Amir0x pointed out that Manos is mostly sane when dealing with other topics, but becomes "Frankenstein" when discussing gun control. It seems like you (maybe better then anybody else) knows that a troll lives inside each of us, and it's just a matter of when and where we let it out.

Anyways, just thought I might provide a different perspective to what occurred within the thread. Bravo to Pete for the valiant effort!

 

[Panipal2009]

Does it matter who is more at fault?

Um, yes it does, because sane, raitional, and fair-minded people don’t seek to blame the innocent for what the guilty do, and propose to get punitive with the innocent rather than the guilty.

But then, you don’t care about fair, just, guilt or innocence, do you?

Once you've admit that lawful gun owners share the blame,

Hold on, where did you admit that gangers shared the blame? How come you have such a problem placing blame where it really belongs? Is it because you’re intellectually dishonest? Don’t want to admit how what criminals do changes the picture you’re trying to paint?

Also, see what I was saying about your lot being selfish before? It’s everyone else who has to ‘admit’ things. You don’t have to ‘admit’ a damn thing.

And it is not unfair to target them specifically.

It most certainly is unfair when you’re unwilling to target gangs/criminals with efforts at confiscation.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. It's pretty clear that there are very rational reasons to regulate guns.

Rational reasons like forecasting doom and making outlandish claims of everyone kng each other? Why are you trying to pretend that’s not an indication of the hysteria and paranoid fear of what people might do that drives g c? Hell, even the fact that you’re driven to attack people for being against gun control points to irrationality and fear of what they might do.

At this point I'm going to use another mean word to describe your opinion: Delusional.

No one is trying to leave people at the mercy of gangbangers.

So you profess not to want something that you’d strain every muscle to make happen (for people on an individual basis). Now what’s the word for that? Ah, yes. Psychotic.

From the very beginning the point was that owning guns adds little to nothing to your personal safety

How do you know that? For every time a violent crime happens to someone, how do you know that gun won’t in fact do them any good?

The fact that you think Diane Feinstein wants to disempower people is pretty heavy nonsense.

Wow. She came out and said, plain as day, that what gun control’s for is a wanting to lord it over everyone, and you actually think you can get away with cracks about ‘delusion’ and ‘pretty heavy nonsense’? What a desperate comment. That’s. Exactly. What. She. Said. There’s no other possible interpretation ya numpty! Despite how desperately you might wish there was.

You lose your personal freedoms when it kills people. This is why we have seat belts and drunk driving is banned.

You mean you don’t think everyone should have their cars taken away from them? You’re right about people losing their personal freedoms. They get jailed for murder/manslaughter.
I notice you dodged the point about some overarching authority that deems it expedient to sacrifice them to gain this desired result or that.

Do you think when you reply, you can avoid filling your response with ‘nuh-uh’ and duckspeak?

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Simply put, Manos was an agitator. That's how he got his rocks off.

Or he enjoys discussing topics that interest him. Hell, it interests us all since we're all in here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the ban. I'll leave that to our mods. Just trying to offer a plausible alternative.

Oh sure, Manos would point out how he agrees with liberal PoliGAF on ~80% of the issues, but he'd spend his time on GAF focusing on that other ~20%. Why? Because he enjoyed agitating people. 2nd Amend./Guns being the obvious example here. Manos knew guns aren't too popular on GAF, and thus would create gun threads (or talk about guns) as much as possible. He'd hide his true intentions behind a "I love guns / the 2nd amend, and want to talk about them" excuse, but it was obvious what he wanted to accomplish.

I mean, there are plenty of topics on GAF that many posters may loathe. I have my list. I just avoid them like the plague. I always enjoyed his firearm/second amendment threads because I enjoy both of those things and I enjoy having a passionate discourse with people that may not particularly agree with my worldview. I know the majority of GAF may not like firearms. But since it's legal here and we seem to be a very tolerant community I don't think it should be out of bounds cause it offends.

The Chik Fil A thread was another example of this. Early on, I believe Manos made a few thowaway comments about supporting the boycott, but then went full-on troll mode about how delicious CFA food is over & over. When his ban was over, he boasted in PoliGAF about how he was the reason why the CFA's thread title got changed. Again, being an agitator.

Yea, I never touched that thread (or Chik's food...never heard of em till this scandal).

all in all It's been fun debating and getting challenged about our views on firearms, carrying and campuses. And to be blunt the people on both sides of the issue need to continue to have this discussion.

 

[HyperionX]

Reading the last two pages of this thread felt like a workout. I have to imagine that such a effort provided by Manos to be batshit insane on this topic has to be (at least) a tiny bit troll-fueled. It seems like if you really wanted to have a mature and adult debate on this subject, you would take your lumps when starring such a defeat in the face and move onto the next battle. After-all, a topic like gun control is never completely cut and dry. I noticed Amir0x pointed out that Manos is mostly sane when dealing with other topics, but becomes "Frankenstein" when discussing gun control. It seems like you (maybe better then anybody else) knows that a troll lives inside each of us, and it's just a matter of when and where we let it out.

Anyways, just thought I might provide a different perspective to what occurred within the thread. Bravo to Pete for the valiant effort!

I never understood why he posted so many inflammatory gun related OPs though. Maybe he was a nice guy in real life, but here it was like he really to get as many people's attention as he could and then tried to actively troll them. More like an instigator than someone who wanted merely to agitate people. Maybe you're right and he completely control of his emotions and ability to concede defeat on any subject. Thanks to Pete for finally dealing with him. PS it's Mr. Hyde not Frankenstein FYI.

Speaking of people letting their inner trolls out,

Um, yes it does, because sane, raitional, and fair-minded people don’t seek to blame the innocent for what the guilty do, and propose to get punitive with the innocent rather than the guilty.

But then, you don’t care about fair, just, guilt or innocence, do you?

These are just more straw men arguments. The rest of your post isn't much better. I'll try to wade through your garage and hopefully get something out of it.

Hold on, where did you admit that gangers shared the blame? How come you have such a problem placing blame where it really belongs? Is it because you’re intellectually dishonest? Don’t want to admit how what criminals do changes the picture you’re trying to paint?

Also, see what I was saying about your lot being selfish before? It’s everyone else who has to ‘admit’ things. You don’t have to ‘admit’ a damn thing.

It most certainly is unfair when you’re unwilling to target gangs/criminals with efforts at confiscation.

When did say we shouldn't go after the gangbangers? I said it from the beginning that both legal and illegal gun owners share the blame. Particularly in creating the lax gun regulation and making easily available guns nearly every where. Since we already have whole police units going after criminals all the time, further focus on them is unnecessary. It is legal gun owners who have avoided all responsibility in this matter, and they are where we need to start regulating. Stop resorting to your old schtick of accusing me of blaming victims or jailing innocent people whenever this subject comes up.

Rational reasons like forecasting doom and making outlandish claims of everyone kng each other? Why are you trying to pretend that’s not an indication of the hysteria and paranoid fear of what people might do that drives g c? Hell, even the fact that you’re driven to attack people for being against gun control points to irrationality and fear of what they might do.

Are you even reading the previous posts? Are you just going to pretend nobody is dying due to lack of gun control, so you can just call all gun control as being irrational?

So you profess not to want something that you’d strain every muscle to make happen (for people on an individual basis). Now what’s the word for that? Ah, yes. Psychotic.

This doesn't even make sense.

How do you know that? For every time a violent crime happens to someone, how do you know that gun won’t in fact do them any good?

Seeing how your trying to get me to prove a negative, it's up to you to prove that this is the case. Even assuming that you could, you're still stuck with the problem of why the US has the highest murder rate of any developed nation. By your logic, the opposite should be the case.

Wow. She came out and said, plain as day, that what gun control’s for is a wanting to lord it over everyone, and you actually think you can get away with cracks about ‘delusion’ and ‘pretty heavy nonsense’? What a desperate comment. That’s. Exactly. What. She. Said. There’s no other possible interpretation ya numpty! Despite how desperately you might wish there was.

No. She. Did. Not. Feinstein did indeed say she would ban all guns if she could. Obviously for the purpose of eliminating gun violence. Your the only one trying to see more to it than that.

You mean you don’t think everyone should have their cars taken away from them? You’re right about people losing their personal freedoms. They get jailed for murder/manslaughter.
I notice you dodged the point about some overarching authority that deems it expedient to sacrifice them to gain this desired result or that.

Many people actually need to use a car, but very few actually need a gun. I have no problem allowing people who need those things to have them. It is the millions of gun owners who don't need them that should be more regulated. You also don't to have kill someone to go to jail for drunk driving btw. I'm also pretty sure you are limited in what kind of vehicle you can use depending on your license (motorcycle, commercial vehicles, etc.) Something sorely lacking when it comes to guns to gun ownership.

Do you think when you reply, you can avoid filling your response with ‘nuh-uh’ and duckspeak?

This statement is absolutely dripping with hypocrisy.

 

[PeteZaTheHutt]

I know the majority of GAF may not like firearms. But since it's legal here and we seem to be a very tolerant community I don't think it should be out of bounds cause it offends.

The problem wasn't that the topic was out of bounds or offensive. It was the way that Manos used disingenuous debate tactics that was out of bounds. Since I've finished debating with him in this thread, I've read a ton of comments from many, many other posters on GAF, in several different threads, who mirror this sentiment.

all in all It's been fun debating and getting challenged about our views on firearms, carrying and campuses. And to be blunt the people on both sides of the issue need to continue to have this discussion.

Agreed.

No. She. Did. Not. Feinstein did indeed say she would ban all guns if she could. Obviously for the purpose of eliminating gun violence. Your the only one trying to see more to it than that.

What is the exact quote that she used?