Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

[barfo]

And I don't consider it important, as accidents only happen to the careless and the criminal.

So if I accidentally shoot you, does that make you careless, or a criminal?

If you avoid the hood, and maintain strict responsibility with firearms, then your chances of dying from a firearm are almost zero.

I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I am to die by a gun. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop driving.

I agree - car accidents are a more likely cause of death. I assume you support efforts to make car accidents less deadly?

We're currently at 326 million people as of this year, so the number is likely closer to 0.0003%.

No, math doesn't work that way. 1712/312 million is 0.00055%, 1712/326 million is 0.00053%.

Good. Now, if you actually want to fix this so-called problem, focus on poverty (jobs in poor areas), fixing the education system, and overhauling the mental health system.

Sure. While spending less money on all of them, according to the plans of the people you've helped elect.

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

So if I accidentally shoot you, does that make you careless, or a criminal?

Well, since you don't like firearms, then that is irrelevant. And I don't associate with those who are dangerous or careless with firearms.

See? Personal choices.

I agree - car accidents are a more likely cause of death. I assume you support efforts to make car accidents less deadly?

Does "efforts to make car accidents less deadly" include restricting horsepower and performance parts, as well as certain types of cars based on their looks?

If your answer to that is "yes", then my answer is no, I do not support that.

No, math doesn't work that way. 1712/312 million is 0.00055%, 1712/326 million is 0.00053%.

Fine, whatever. My point still stands.

Sure. While spending less money on all of them, according to the plans of the people you've helped elect.

Remind me what Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, or Carter have done to fix the education system, jobs in the hood, and mental health.

Go ahead....I'll wait.

If they had addressed these issues, then they wouldn't be such a problem today, and you know it. This is a continuing, nation-wide problem with BOTH political parties, and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron of epic proportions.

I didn't like Obama, but even I'm not dumb enough to think he could have fixed these problems in two terms.

 

[barfo]

Well, since you don't like firearms, then that is irrelevant. And I don't associate with those who are dangerous or careless with firearms.

See? Personal choices.

Pretty sure I could accidentally shoot you without you 'associating' with me. And I do own a gun. And although I don't like to, I occasionally do pass through Vancouver on the way to nicer places. I was there just 3 days ago. So in theory, it could happen. Much more likely though, one of your fellow hillbillies might shoot you.

Remind me what Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, or Carter have done to fix the education system, jobs in the hood, and mental health.

Go ahead....I'll wait.

If they had addressed these issues, then they wouldn't be such a problem today, and you know it. This is a continuing, nation-wide problem with BOTH political parties, and anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron of epic proportions.

I didn't like Obama, but even I'm not dumb enough to think he could have fixed these problems in two terms.

So let's see.

The country is fucked up.
It's the responsibility of the federal government to fix it.
The federal government can't be trusted with power or money.

Is that an accurate summation of your views? Do you see any problem there?

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

Pretty sure I could accidentally shoot you without you 'associating' with me. And I do own a gun. And although I don't like to, I occasionally do pass through Vancouver on the way to nicer places. I was there just 3 days ago. So in theory, it could happen. Much more likely though, one of your fellow hillbillies might shoot you.

LMAO. Sure. In theory I could also get struck by lightning on a sunny day too. Ban clouds!

You feel safer on Rosa Parks than in Cascade Park, huh? Dumbest thing you've said in this entire thread.

So let's see.

The country is fucked up.
It's the responsibility of the federal government to fix it.
The federal government can't be trusted with power or money.

Is that an accurate summation of your views? Do you see any problem there?

Yeah, I see a problem with that. You trust the government too much. Whereas I don't, but I accept it for what it is: a giant fucking mess that is going to take decades to fix.

Let me guess.....you don't trust the government to balance a budget properly, but you're perfectly okay with them legislating feel-good laws about guns.

Am I right?

So....do you see any problem there?

 

[MarAzul]

accidentally shoot you

Wow!

Accidental shootings, Hillbillies?

Sounds like a moron with dementia maturing.

 

[barfo]

LMAO. Sure. In theory I could also get struck by lightning on a sunny day too. Ban clouds!

As a reminder, you said accidents only happen to the careless or criminal, which doesn't make any sense at all (do criminals have more accidents than other people?).

Then you implied that you could only be accidentally shot by your associates.

You feel safer on Rosa Parks than in Cascade Park, huh? Dumbest thing you've said in this entire thread.

That is a dumb thing to say, but you are the one who said it. I said nothing of the sort. I didn't say I felt safe or unsafe in any particular locations.

Yeah, I see a problem with that. You trust the government too much. Whereas I don't, but I accept it for what it is: a giant fucking mess that is going to take decades to fix.

Let me guess.....you don't trust the government to balance a budget properly, but you're perfectly okay with them legislating feel-good laws about guns.

Am I right?

So....do you see any problem there?

I think you dodged my point, but that's ok.
And no, I don't see much connection between passing budgets and gun safety laws. Do you?

barfo

 

[Cippy91]

As a reminder, you said accidents only happen to the careless or criminal, which doesn't make any sense at all (do criminals have more accidents than other people?).

Then you implied that you could only be accidentally shot by your associates.



That is a dumb thing to say, but you are the one who said it. I said nothing of the sort. I didn't say I felt safe or unsafe in any particular locations.



I think you dodged my point, but that's ok.
And no, I don't see much connection between passing budgets and gun safety laws. Do you?

barfo

Why do you constantly claim everybody you disagree with just reads what you said wrong and why do you always end your posts with smart ass remarks thinking you just hit a grand slam and really proved your point?

also you apparently forget about what you say

convenient. Sounds a lot like somebody with a god complex who thinks they are always right

 

[barfo]

Why do you constantly claim everybody you disagree with just reads what you said wrong

I don't constantly claim that. I only claim it when it happens, as it did in this case.

and why do you always end your posts with smart ass remarks thinking you just hit a grand slam and really proved your point?

I enjoy making smart ass remarks.

also you apparently forget about what you say

convenient. Sounds a lot like somebody with a god complex who could feels like they are never wrong.

So, why do you always end your posts with dumb ass remarks?

barfo

 

[Cippy91]

I don't constantly claim that. I only claim it when it happens, as it did in this case.



I enjoy making smart ass remarks.



So, why do you always end your posts with dumb ass remarks?

barfo

But see you aren't nearly as clever as you think, you kinda just come off as an ignorant bitter older man. Any point I have ever made to you, you claim I just didn't read it right. You do it with everybody you disagree with. instead of addressing their points you wanna act stupid and say "oh well I didn't say that". Then you end it with some remark trying to down the other person. Or you just take shots silently and then bounce. You instigate. Then you act like you did nothing wrong when called out. Classic progressive.

Lets not forget you referred to me as a female last night, basically using it as a negative but you would quickly white knight yourself to the one lady with cats on the forum. Ironic

 

[Jade Falcon]

As a reminder, you said accidents only happen to the careless or criminal, which doesn't make any sense at all (do criminals have more accidents than other people?).

Then you implied that you could only be accidentally shot by your associates.



That is a dumb thing to say, but you are the one who said it. I said nothing of the sort. I didn't say I felt safe or unsafe in any particular locations.



I think you dodged my point, but that's ok.
And no, I don't see much connection between passing budgets and gun safety laws. Do you?

barfo

Bullshit. You clearly said that there was nicer places than Vancouver (which I'm sure there are, but it's an irrelevant argument for the current topic), and you all but directly said that Vancouver has a bunch of hillbillies in it that shoot each other.

How else am I supposed to interpret that?

But whatever. Stick to the point: firearms. Not your irrational dislike of Vancouver.

As a reminder, you said accidents only happen to the careless or criminal, which doesn't make any sense at all (do criminals have more accidents than other people?)

Yes, they do. Criminals tend to have more accidents than others because they tend to be less educated and more prone spontaneous and irrational behavior; to acting out without thinking first. This is common knowledge.

Then you implied that you could only be accidentally shot by your associates

Wrong again, and you know it. This is exactly what I said:

And I don't associate with those who are dangerous or careless with firearms.

There you go.

Why do you constantly claim everybody you disagree with just reads what you said wrong and why do you always end your posts with smart ass remarks thinking you just hit a grand slam and really proved your point?

also you apparently forget about what you say

convenient. Sounds a lot like somebody with a god complex who thinks they are always right

I know his game bro. He has a habit of doing this, but I'm no fool. Unlike him, I'm actually properly educated on this subject. All he has are emotional arguments given to him gun control advocates, who use emotion in the place of rational reasoning and facts.

It's easy to beat.

I don't constantly claim that. I only claim it when it happens, as it did in this case.



I enjoy making smart ass remarks.



So, why do you always end your posts with dumb ass remarks?

barfo

So I shouldn't take anything you say seriously because you enjoy making smart ass remarks? That's it, isn't it? You don't actually care about any of this stuff....you just want to win "gotcha" arguments to make yourself feel validated.

But see you aren't nearly as clever as you think, you kinda just come off as an ignorant bitter older man. Any point I have ever made to you, you claim I just didn't read it right. You do it with everybody you disagree with. instead of addressing their points you wanna act stupid and say "oh well I didn't say that". Then you end it with some remark trying to down the other person. Or you just take shots silently and then bounce. You instigate. Then you act like you did nothing wrong when called out. Classic progressive.

Lets not forget you referred to me as a female last night, basically using it as a negative but you would quickly white knight yourself to the one lady with cats on the forum. Ironic

Yep. Cippy knows how it is. He knows your game.

Barfo, you can't win an argument by saying "I'm right, and you're wrong". You have to actually articulate your reasonings and back them up with verifiable facts. So far, you haven't done that. At all.

And if I counter your arguments with logic and reasoning, then you need to either A) find another way to approach the argument, or B) find another way to explain your point in a way that I can relate to you with.

You haven't done or attempted either of those things. So....why not try it, instead of being a constant smart ass who's only response is "I'm right and you're wrong". Because you're never going to win this argument otherwise.

 

[barfo]

Bullshit. You clearly said that there was nicer places than Vancouver (which I'm sure there are, but it's an irrelevant argument for the current topic), and you all but directly said that Vancouver has a bunch of hillbillies in it that shoot each other.

How else am I supposed to interpret that?

Well, nicer and safer are two different words with different meanings. I said nicer, and you changed it to safer.

So, I repeat. I didn't say anything about Portland being safer than Vancouver. I didn't even specify Portland as someplace nicer than Vancouver, just that there were nicer places.

So your claim of bullshit is bullshit.

But whatever. Stick to the point: firearms. Not your irrational dislike of Vancouver.

Yes, they do. Criminals tend to have more accidents than others because they tend to be less educated and more prone spontaneous and irrational behavior; to acting out without thinking first. This is common knowledge.

Ok. That's a reasonable point.

Wrong again, and you know it. This is exactly what I said:



There you go.

Yes, that's exactly what you said. But if you look at the context in which you said it - you were clearly saying (or you weren't expressing yourself clearly, take your pick) that you wouldn't get accidentally shot because you don't associate with people who accidentally shoot people. Now, probably that lowers your chances, but it does not eliminate them.

I know his game bro. He has a habit of doing this, but I'm no fool. Unlike him, I'm actually properly educated on this subject. All he has are emotional arguments given to him gun control advocates, who use emotion in the place of rational reasoning and facts.

It's easy to beat.

It's easy to beat strawmen. I haven't argued for gun control in this thread. I merely pointed out you posted something with poor math.

So I shouldn't take anything you say seriously because you enjoy making smart ass remarks? That's it, isn't it? You don't actually care about any of this stuff....you just want to win "gotcha" arguments to make yourself feel validated.

I don't care very much about gun control, no. Or at least I'm not nearly as passionate about the subject as you. And yes, I like to argue. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yep. Cippy knows how it is. He knows your game.

Cippy doesn't even know her own game.

Barfo, you can't win an argument by saying "I'm right, and you're wrong". You have to actually articulate your reasonings and back them up with verifiable facts. So far, you haven't done that. At all.

Because I'm not arguing for gun control. Try to get that through your head.

And if I counter your arguments with logic and reasoning, then you need to either A) find another way to approach the argument, or B) find another way to explain your point in a way that I can relate to you with.

You haven't done or attempted either of those things. So....why not try it, instead of being a constant smart ass who's only response is "I'm right and you're wrong". Because you're never going to win this argument otherwise.

What is it that you think I'm saying "I'm right and you are wrong" about? What do you think we are arguing about?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Well, nicer and safer are two different words with different meanings. I said nicer, and you changed it to safer.

So, I repeat. I didn't say anything about Portland being safer than Vancouver. I didn't even specify Portland as someplace nicer than Vancouver, just that there were nicer places.

So your claim of bullshit is bullshit.



Ok. That's a reasonable point.





Yes, that's exactly what you said. But if you look at the context in which you said it - you were clearly saying (or you weren't expressing yourself clearly, take your pick) that you wouldn't get accidentally shot because you don't associate with people who accidentally shoot people. Now, probably that lowers your chances, but it does not eliminate them.



It's easy to beat strawmen. I haven't argued for gun control in this thread. I merely pointed out you posted something with poor math.



I don't care very much about gun control, no. Or at least I'm not nearly as passionate about the subject as you. And yes, I like to argue. You say that like it's a bad thing.



Cippy doesn't even know his own game.



Because I'm not arguing for gun control. Try to get that through your head.



What is it that you think I'm saying "I'm right and you are wrong" about? What do you think we are arguing about?

barfo

I'm so tired of your dog hating rants.

 

[barfo]

Lets not forget you referred to me as a female last night, basically using it as a negative

No, not using it as a negative, using it to make a point.

In case the point went over your head, which seems entirely possible, I'll explain it in detail.

You claim that how people self-identify is irrelevant and annoying and that you have a right to call them whatever gender you want to call them.

I was applying your rules to you. I assume you self-identify as a male, but that's irrelevant - according to you.

So I shall henceforth use 'her' and 'she' to refer to you. Fair enough?

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'm so tired of your dog hating rants.

I just don't trust Dog-Americans. We need to close our border collies and institute extreme vetting. I think that will fix the problem.

barfo

 

[Cippy91]

No, not using it as a negative, using it to make a point.

In case the point went over your head, which seems entirely possible, I'll explain it in detail.

You claim that how people self-identify is irrelevant and annoying and that you have a right to call them whatever gender you want to call them.

I was applying your rules to you. I assume you self-identify as a male, but that's irrelevant - according to you.

So I shall henceforth use 'her' and 'she' to refer to you. Fair enough?

barfo

No this is where you're playing stupid again. I don't feel as if I can call anybody whatever gender they aren't. I refer to people as their actual genders and if they wanna be known as the other gender, sorry not working for me. It's called common sense and the fact you tried to twist that again and apparently you don't know the difference between what gender has a dick and which one has a pussy makes you super ignorant and quite honestly dumb.

if anybody has strawman arguments it's you, I have never seen you type out one solid point, you're too busy shitting on points that you can actually research and find out are true, you're just stuck in a dimension where the truth is what you want it to be, you pick and choose. Research a bit, learn some stuff and you might find out a lot of the points people make on here against yours are actually true.

Keep being emotional!!!

 

[barfo]

No this is where you're playing stupid again. I don't feel as if I can call anybody whatever gender they aren't. I refer to people as their actual genders and if they wanna be known as the other gender, sorry not working for me. It's called common sense and the fact you tried to twist that again and apparently you don't know the difference between what gender has a dick and which one has a pussy makes you super ignorant and quite honestly dumb.

You sound emotional. I'm sorry you are confused about what gender you are, but I refer to people by their actual genders, and yours is female.

if anybody has strawman arguments it's you, I have never seen you type out one solid point, you're too busy shitting on points that you can actually research and find out are true, you're just stuck in a dimension where the truth is what you want it to be, you pick and choose. Research a bit, learn some stuff and you might find out a lot of the points people make on here against yours are actually true.

Yes, I should do some more research. The lady has a point.

barfo

 

[Cippy91]

You sound emotional. I'm sorry you are confused about what gender you are, but I refer to people by their actual genders, and yours is female.



Yes, I should do some more research. The lady has a point.

barfo

Yeah it's kind of insane you think there are more than 2 genders. Don't know why you refer to me as a female, seems what I said went right over your head as everything does.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Sorry for the late reply. I was watching UFC 213......I pity anyone who paid money for that shit. Really wanted to see the Nunes fight instead of some 40 year old slow fucker defend his title. Which he lost, and rightfully so. Boring fucking match.

Anyways....

Well, nicer and safer are two different words with different meanings. I said nicer, and you changed it to safer.

So, I repeat. I didn't say anything about Portland being safer than Vancouver. I didn't even specify Portland as someplace nicer than Vancouver, just that there were nicer places.

So your claim of bullshit is bullshit.

Fine. My mistake. Dropping it.

Ok. That's a reasonable point.

Thank you.

Yes, that's exactly what you said. But if you look at the context in which you said it - you were clearly saying (or you weren't expressing yourself clearly, take your pick) that you wouldn't get accidentally shot because you don't associate with people who accidentally shoot people. Now, probably that lowers your chances, but it does not eliminate them.

You said it yourself: it lowers the chances of getting accidentally shot. But nowhere did I imply that it eliminates the risk entirely. If that's what you took from it, then I apologize; that wasn't what I was saying.

I gather that you are trying to say that accidents happen; mistakes happen. You are right: they do. A few years back, there was a popular author for one of the gun magazines; a retired police officer with a distinguished career, who also taught self-defense classes for civilians and police officers. One day, while his family was out, he put a .25 caliber semi-auto pistol in a holster in the front of his waistband (they call it "Appendix Carry" for where the gun is positioned when you carry it) and then went out to his garage (he was on his way to teach a class).

Once out there, he bent over to pick up a fallen broom; the gun fell out of his wristband, hit the back of the slide on the concrete floor, and discharged a .25 JHP back up into his chest. He collapsed and died right there in the garage.

I'm well aware that accidents happen. When I said "almost zero", I wasn't saying that it can NEVER happen. But as you stated, as the point I was trying to make: not associating with dangerous, reckless, or careless people, nor putting yourself in such situations, can greatly reduce your risk of getting shot. It's worked for me, and it works for millions of other safe, law-abiding gun owners in this country every day.

It's easy to beat strawmen. I haven't argued for gun control in this thread. I merely pointed out you posted something with poor math.

Barfo.......do you honestly expect me to believe that you've been arguing for some...3 pages?....of this thread over the correct math of a graphic I posted?

If that is seriously the case, then you have once again missed the point that I have been repeating over and over and over in this thread. And that is this: we do not have a gun violence problem in this country. Not even close.

Stop arguing the math. Even yourself came to the conclusion that it wasn't that much of a difference (your own math proved this). Start looking at the POINT of the post, not the math.

I don't care very much about gun control, no. Or at least I'm not nearly as passionate about the subject as you. And yes, I like to argue. You say that like it's a bad thing.

Two things:

1) those who usually argue that we have a gun violence problem in this country (which is what I'm ASSUMING you were doing when you were arguing the math with me...) usually are arguing in favor of gun control. If you weren't, then fine. But I just hope you understand that perspective, that's all.

2) I love to argue, so I can relate to you on that. BUT....I learned long ago only to argue on that which I am knowledgeable about. Which is why I don't argue often on this forum. I'm not saying you were arguing from an uneducated perspective, I'm just stating MY position when arguing.

What is it that you think I'm saying "I'm right and you are wrong" about? What do you think we are arguing about?

Well....the fact that you continue to take what I'm saying out of context, ignore it completely (or just miss the point that I'm trying to make entirely, your choice), or just use outright sarcasm tells me that you're just trying to say "I'm right, and you're wrong" without making a concrete point.

So....I'll ask you a very simple question to get back on point here, so that, if you wish, we can try and fix this dialogue here.....

What, specifically, are you arguing in this thread? That mistakes happen? Accidents happen? Poor math happens?

The ball is in your court.

 

[barfo]

You said it yourself: it lowers the chances of getting accidentally shot. But nowhere did I imply that it eliminates the risk entirely. If that's what you took from it, then I apologize; that wasn't what I was saying.

I gather that you are trying to say that accidents happen; mistakes happen. You are right: they do. A few years back, there was a popular author for one of the gun magazines; a retired police officer with a distinguished career, who also taught self-defense classes for civilians and police officers. One day, while his family was out, he put a .25 caliber semi-auto pistol in a holster in the front of his waistband (they call it "Appendix Carry" for where the gun is positioned when you carry it) and then went out to his garage (he was on his way to teach a class).

Once out there, he bent over to pick up a fallen broom; the gun fell out of his wristband, hit the back of the slide on the concrete floor, and discharged a .25 JHP back up into his chest. He collapsed and died right there in the garage.

I'm well aware that accidents happen. When I said "almost zero", I wasn't saying that it can NEVER happen. But as you stated, as the point I was trying to make: not associating with dangerous, reckless, or careless people, nor putting yourself in such situations, can greatly reduce your risk of getting shot. It's worked for me, and it works for millions of other safe, law-abiding gun owners in this country every day.

Yes, I agree. Of course, it only works until it doesn't. By definition, people get shot to death at most once in their life, and the people who do get shot to death don't post here afterwards. But gun safety is a good idea, and I applaud those who practice it.

Barfo.......do you honestly expect me to believe that you've been arguing for some...3 pages?....of this thread over the correct math of a graphic I posted?

Nope, I just responded to the math, and the discussion went various places from there.

If that is seriously the case, then you have once again missed the point that I have been repeating over and over and over in this thread. And that is this: we do not have a gun violence problem in this country. Not even close.

I noted that you made that point, I'm not sure I agree with it, but I haven't tried to argue it with you, either.

Stop arguing the math. Even yourself came to the conclusion that it wasn't that much of a difference (your own math proved this). Start looking at the POINT of the post, not the math.

Don't post bad math or bogus statistics, it makes your point less believable. Saying 'look, numbers!', and then having to say 'don't pay attention to the numbers!' isn't super convincing.

Two things:

1) those who usually argue that we have a gun violence problem in this country (which is what I'm ASSUMING you were doing when you were arguing the math with me...) usually are arguing in favor of gun control. If you weren't, then fine. But I just hope you understand that perspective, that's all.

I do understand how you assumed that - but it was, in this case, actually an incorrect assumption. It is of course true that I am more pro-gun control than you - but I often argue over details within a larger point.

2) I love to argue, so I can relate to you on that. BUT....I learned long ago only to argue on that which I am knowledgeable about. Which is why I don't argue often on this forum. I'm not saying you were arguing from an uneducated perspective, I'm just stating MY position when arguing.

Well....the fact that you continue to take what I'm saying out of context, ignore it completely (or just miss the point that I'm trying to make entirely, your choice), or just use outright sarcasm tells me that you're just trying to say "I'm right, and you're wrong" without making a concrete point.

I'm sorry it comes across that way. I think everyone here ignores certain things in a back and forth, either because they don't consider the point important, or it isn't what they want to talk about, or they don't have an answer for it, or they agree and don't feel the need to say so.

In this particular case, where we don't even agree on what subject we were arguing about, there is going to be even more points that seem to be ignored/missed.

So....I'll ask you a very simple question to get back on point here, so that, if you wish, we can try and fix this dialogue here.....

What, specifically, are you arguing in this thread? That mistakes happen? Accidents happen? Poor math happens?

The ball is in your court.

Great question! I did not have, at any point in this discussion with you, an overall point I was trying to make. I responded to your math post, and the conversation went from there. I simply responded to anything you said that I found interesting. If you say 'the sky is green', I will argue that the sky isn't green. It doesn't necessarily mean that I give a damn about the color of the sky, or that I think it invalidates the other 1000 words you wrote in the same post.

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

Alright, I'm glad we got this sorted.

For the record, when I posted that graphic, it wasn't so much the numbers that I was arguing, it was the point of the post that I was clarifying: that we don't have a gun violence problem (whether you agree with that or not....I'm just stating my point with that graphic).

But, if I may.....the numbers on that graphic weren't that big of a difference or far off from what the math was that you used. Personally, I don't think it would have been worth arguing over, if it were me. But that's just me.

I mean, shit....if I say "this bag of M&Ms contains 300 candies"......why argue if the bag contains 290? At some point, I just think it's a little redundant.

 

[barfo]

Alright, I'm glad we got this sorted.

For the record, when I posted that graphic, it wasn't so much the numbers that I was arguing, it was the point of the post that I was clarifying: that we don't have a gun violence problem (whether you agree with that or not....I'm just stating my point with that graphic).

But, if I may.....the numbers on that graphic weren't that big of a difference or far off from what the math was that you used. Personally, I don't think it would have been worth arguing over, if it were me. But that's just me.

I mean, shit....if I say "this bag of M&Ms contains 300 candies"......why argue if the bag contains 290? At some point, I just think it's a little redundant.

Well, like I said in the first post - I'm not sure the data in the graphic is accurate either. I don't think the analysis in the graphic is sound. So I'm not conceding that, if the math was corrected, that the overall point would be valid. We could have that argument, but we haven't (yet). I merely pointed out the bad math. My hunch is that the bad math is accompanied by bad logic and bad data (because those problems are quite often found together). I haven't proven that (or attempted to), though.

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

Well, like I said in the first post - I'm not sure the data in the graphic is accurate either. I don't think the analysis in the graphic is sound. So I'm not conceding that, if the math was corrected, that the overall point would be valid. We could have that argument, but we haven't (yet). I merely pointed out the bad math. My hunch is that the bad math is accompanied by bad logic and bad data (because those problems are quite often found together). I haven't proven that (or attempted to), though.

barfo

I'm going to just say that I think it's pretty close to accurate. Is it 100%? Probably not. But judging by the last numbers of gun control activists that I usually see, I think it''s accurate enough to make a point.

Like I said: math was never my strong point, nor did I make the graphic (found it on Twitter, IIRC...). But it looked well broken down to me.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

No, not using it as a negative, using it to make a point.

In case the point went over your head, which seems entirely possible, I'll explain it in detail.

You claim that how people self-identify is irrelevant and annoying and that you have a right to call them whatever gender you want to call them.

I was applying your rules to you. I assume you self-identify as a male, but that's irrelevant - according to you.

So I shall henceforth use 'her' and 'she' to refer to you. Fair enough?

barfo

Uhhhhhhhhhh, burn.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

There is a lot of text to read between the part where barfo starts calling him her. I am going to skip it and explain my opinion on the subject.

If someone wants to be called a weird pronoun that I don't understand or feel like doing I plan to just call them by their given name.

If barfo wants to be called zhed or whatever made up word zhed wants I'd just stop saying zhed and say barfo does this, and barfo does that.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

There is a lot of text to read between the part where barfo starts calling him her. I am going to skip it and explain my opinion on the subject.

If someone wants to be called a weird pronoun that I don't understand or feel like doing I plan to just call them by their given name.

If barfo wants to be called zhed or whatever made up word zhed wants I'd just stop saying zhed and say barfo does this, and barfo does that.

I like how @Cippy91 package checks everyone he meets, "Hmmm... I feel something down there, I will call you a he."

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I like how @Cippy91 package checks everyone he meets, "Hmmm... I feel something down there, I will call you a he."

I'm not that worried about it. I say he or she if I don't know someone. I don't run into many people like the mom who wants the baby's gender marked unknown.

I'm actually a bit confused about how they picked the pronouns they want to use. They don't seem to have tried to create new words that fit with the flow of the English language. Calling a single person they makes my brain cringe. That one needs to stop.

If someone asks me where Barfo went, I'd say something like "he went across the street to fill his crazy pill prescription"

If you answered "they went across the street to fill they's crazy pill prescription" I'd ask "rasta went too?"

 

[MarAzul]

There is a lot of text to read between the part where barfo starts calling him her. I am going to skip it and explain my opinion on the subject.

If someone wants to be called a weird pronoun that I don't understand or feel like doing I plan to just call them by their given name.

If barfo wants to be called zhed or whatever made up word zhed wants I'd just stop saying zhed and say barfo does this, and barfo does that.

I switched to barf before I heard anything about gender.

 

[Cippy91]

I like how @Cippy91 package checks everyone he meets, "Hmmm... I feel something down there, I will call you a he."

can you not tell if somebody is a he or she?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

can you not tell if somebody is a he or she?

Not always, live in Vegas for a while. My wife has some employees that I don't think you'd know unless I told you to lool realllllly close.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

can you not tell if somebody is a he or she?

But, you'd just call them she and nobody would care.