Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    1,161 link karma
    182,444 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Your pro-gun arguments are stupid - Alabama Political Reporter TracyMorganFreeman 2 points ago in guncontrol

    It never ceases to amaze me how many half-literate buffoons can recite the back end of the 2nd Amendment but seem completely befuddled by the first half: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ….”

    And "well regulated" means "in good working order" in 18th century parlance. It has literally nothing to do with regulation in the modern parlance.

    They also wanted people to be responsible with their firearms, which is why the people in 1776 America had more far-reaching gun laws than the people in 2018 America, including laws on storage and who could keep weapons.

    Yes, by Britain, which is what sparked the Revolution.

    Except, it doesn’t solve anything. In fact, on a daily basis, more guns equals more shootings. Every single time.

    Let's ignore that shootings can be defensive.

    Let me break this down for you: In 2015, two veteran NYPD officers were fired upon by a guy who they were attempting to apprehend for stealing car stereos. The cops returned fire. They shot 84 times on a NYC street.

    They hit the suspect once. He was grazed on his calf.

    This dream that Mr. Upton, the algebra teacher, is going to put down a mass shooter is really, really stupid.

    Oh well if trained police are so inaccurate, what's the concern over armed citizens?

    Or is the author using a single example and trying to sell it as representative of anything?

    We should be talking about the mental health of anyone who believes more guns, in this gun-loving country, is the answer to a gun problem that only occurs with such frequency in this country.

    And there it is.

    Gun control advocate ignores the defensive and deterrent element of guns.

    Thus, isn't arguably honestly.

    I don’t seem to recall GOP members of Congress expressing outrage when the domestic abuse-enabler y’all elected president was rolling back Obama’s regulations on mental health patients purchasing firearms.

    Because it violated due process. Even the ACLU was against that law.

    Guns are the problem.

    Guns are a tool.

    Too many Americans believe that a gun is a magical instrument that makes its owner instantly safer.

    True, although too gun control advocates think the government a magical instrument that not only makes them instantly safer, but somehow does so without guns, all while pushing for it to enforce gun restrictions.

    Yet, statistics say the exact opposite is true — that you’re less safe with a gun in your home, and even during an attack, more than half of gun owners end up with their own weapons being used against them.

    Still not including actual defensive uses I see.

    But by now, it should be no surprise that Americans believe faulty information or that they rely on their egos to make decisions that ignore clear facts.

    The irony of this is lost on the author.

    Facts say nothing on their own. You need critical reasoning, which means examining which facts are relevant, and which relevant facts may be missing from the assessment.

    The author fails to account for the impact of how many guns save lives, and what the overall net effect is.

    [–] Your pro-gun arguments are stupid - Alabama Political Reporter TracyMorganFreeman 2 points ago in guncontrol

    You're aware that MacDonald v Chicago made the 2nd amendment apply to states via the 14th amendment, right?

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 2 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    In this case they did not, but that's not how things go the vast majority of the time.

    And the threat of force is usually enough for compliance.

    But that only works if the force is brought to bear when there is noncompliance.

    We certainly do not have a LACK of cops shooting people in the U.S.

    We certainly do not have a lack of violent crime either.

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 2 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    If you're suggesting that the person would instead result to violence and start killing the police that are trying to arrest them... that will never end well for that person.

    Sure, if we assume the police actually engage with a shooter.

    Apparently we shouldn't assume they will.

    [–] Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns TracyMorganFreeman 12 points ago in news

    Ah true.

    IIRC that still meant it had to be reported to the FBI database (NCIS?)

    [–] Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns TracyMorganFreeman 3 points ago in news

    The opposite.

    The loophole exists in the sense some people don't follow the law, but still do so in the spirit of the law

    [–] Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns TracyMorganFreeman 90 points ago in news

    That someone was the Air Force upon his dishonorable discharge.

    That was not an instance of a loophole, or insufficient regulation.

    It was the current regulation not actually being done.

    [–] Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns TracyMorganFreeman 9 points ago * (lasted edited 13 hours ago) in news

    That is likely because what counts as a domestic abuser varies by state.

    Calling it a loophole is a bit of a misnomer.

    [–] There Was a “Good Guy With a Gun” at the Parkland Shooting. He Did Nothing. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in politics

    You seem to think that there is no problem to solve with mass shootings. This either means you're purposefully dense, or just some kind of monster.


    I want to know what the net effect on restricting access to guns is. Guns can be used defensively as well.

    So does restricting access to guns have a net positive or negative effect on murders.

    If tomorrow we murders by half but mass shootings would double, I'd see it as a moral victory.

    You have some weird hang-up with how I feel about gun deaths vs other deaths.

    No it's more that you arguments rely on either being ignorant of statistics or feeling differently for a death based on whether it was by gun or not.

    This has nothing to do with the conversation, but the fact that you keep trying to put words into my mouth has ended any interest I have with continuing this debate.

    I have not put words in your mouth. I asked your position on something and pointed out conclusions that follow from that, which are likely ones you may not have considered.

    The conclusions you draw from your positions are not the only conclusions that are supported by those positions.

    I hope that you never have to experience anything like a mass shooting, but if you do maybe then you'll realize that it's an actual problem worth solving.

    The fact you infer from me saying there are bigger fish to fry and we have to look at the whole equation that I don't think it's worth solving says volumes about you compared to me.

    It says you've made a critical error in judgement, or you're being dishonest in characterizing my position.

    Mass shootings are worth solving, but not in a vacuum. Not all methods for solving them are worthwhile when considering the total net effects.

    This subreddit is rife with people who simply infer "I don't think that's the best way of solving the problem" as "I don't think we should do anything". It's a nonsequitur and either a fundamental error in critical thinking or pure dishonesty for rhetorical expediency. I generally give the benefit of the doubt it's the former but when I point this out it's completely ignored, making it difficult to continue giving such a benefit of the doubt.

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    And how does that threat have any teeth?

    Why it's ultimately men with guns.

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 3 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter


    Police just ask gun dealers and owners nicely, or is there a threat of force behind it?

    [–] James Damore Says People Won't Hire Him Because They're Afraid of Google TracyMorganFreeman 24 points ago in MensRights

    Google wants the best possible staff it can find.

    You don't get that with diversity for diversity's sake.

    You don't get that with your employees calling half the population inferior.

    He didn't say that.

    That's why he got shit canned and that's why he's blacklisted.

    No it's because he went against the narrative that diversity for diversity sake actually is good, moral and effective.

    [–] There Was a “Good Guy With a Gun” at the Parkland Shooting. He Did Nothing. TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in politics

    And the CDC has interpreted the rule as meaning they are not to study gun violence at all, so they don't.

    Well they're wrong and have done studies.

    Per this article (you can follow the sources yourself), President Obama ordered them to conduct a study in 2013, and the CDC said they can, as long as it follows under strict contexts, and that their resources to do so are still "very limited."

    If you had read the fully study you'd know that it was limited because that was a proof of concept study for a methodology. It was limited to one small area and not nationwide.

    Dickey himself said that he regrets his role in the amendment, and that it is, in fact, a ban on studying gun violence.

    That's nice. The political winds change and politicians change their mind.

    I'm neither impressed nor convinced when a politician changes their tune.

    But let's grant it for the sake of argument. The amendment would only ban the CDC from studying it; it doesn't make studying gun violence illegal nationwide.

    Of course call me when a gun violence study full takes into account aggressive, defensive, and deterrent violence and doesn't just roll it all into one ball of overaggregation.

    In your next point you list a bunch of studies that don't prove (or disprove) your own original point. Your point was that the murder rate is "quite low" compared to years past. Find me a chart that actually has the list of gun related deaths going back as far as you'd like, similar to the one that "only covered four year" that I included in an earlier comment, and then we'll talk.

    It went back as far as 1980...

    Even if limited to the 1993 one that's still 6 times the span of yours.

    I'm upset when anyone dies unnecessarily, and gun deaths are 100% unnecessary.

    So are knife deaths, and NO not all gun deaths are unnecessary.

    Killing someone in self defense that would have killed you and/or others for example.

    I'm getting the feeling you really do feel it's better someone died from something other than guns.

    And the number of mass shootings has more than tripled since 2011 alone.

    Tripling what is a drop in the bucket as a percent of killings is still a drop in the bucket.

    You lack a sense of proportion.

    You can go back as far as you'd like to cherry pick your numbers, but the stats and news prove that the problem is growing, and people like you who refuse to do something about it are the problem.

    No, people like you who can't do math and think that if they don't want to do what you want to do they want to do nothing is the problem.

    When upwards of twenty children are murdered at school, there is a huge problem. And the fact that that last statement could describe a number of different shootings is even worse.

    When thousands of blacks murder each other in gang warfare largely thanks to the drug war and you focus on an isolated incident because children, you lack perspective and saving lives isn't your first priority.

    More people are killed by knives than all rifles combined, assault or otherwise.

    You. Lack. Perspective.

    I don't think l we as a society are limited to one focus. By all means, let's do something about gang violence and suicide and end the drug war. But that doesn't mean we can't also do something about mass shootings.

    Actually when political capital is finite, the fact you focus on what will take more and do less tells me you either don't know what you're talking about-an excuse that no longer applies since you're now informed-or your first priority is something other than saving lives.

    You're focused on low hanging fruit in the context of saving lives, and I'm guessing because it makes you feel better than saving 10x the number of people in a single year from drugs or gang violence than all the mass shootings combined from the last 30 years.

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    I hate that saying. 20/20 is by definition average.

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 7 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    If we can't rely on the police for this, we can't rely on them to enforce gun control either, no?

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 0 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    So when will we be not relying on police to enforce gun control and confiscate guns from people disqualified to have them?

    How is some people not using a gun a rebuttal to the idea that people can and do use guns to defend themselves and others?

    [–] Fair point TracyMorganFreeman 1 points ago in WhitePeopleTwitter

    Just ignore that he was ambushed and shot in the back.