Why are gun nerds such failures in life? (gallon, controversial, stats)

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by stycotl

that is because one of the fundamental differences between someone like him and someone like you, at least regarding internet communications, is that with you, there is still an acknowledgment that you are dealing with human beings and therefore you maintain some level of respect.

with him, he is just dealing with anonymous "profiles" on the web which he chooses to use and abuse because it likely makes him feel tough or cool or something along those lines.

unfortunately, there are a number of people in every debate on the net, on every side of every debate as well, that get their kicks this way. i am pretty darn confident that it is triggered by the same conditions that create bullies in the real world: often lack of self confidence, lack of purpose, lack of healthy family life, lack of education, lack of real world education, etc.

they all lead to immaturity and a mediocre ability to critically think through the issues.

Indeed, his falling into crass generalizations, and blatantly aiming to incite angry reactions through massively insulting statements, does lead one to believe that he discounts the human element behind the posts that magically appear on the board. I thought that 'liberals' were all about the feelings of people other than themselves. Only if those others share their views and interests it would seem, at least in his case.I rather like the theory of not having any actual knowledge of the subject at hand, and compensating for this by attempting to demean and belittle. Pretty transparent.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

I thought that 'liberals' were all about the feelings of people other than themselves..

If you also care about the feelings of people other than yourself, why don't you join them?

[ogre]

Originally Posted by jtur88

If you also care about the feelings of people other than yourself, why don't you join them?

I can’t speak definitively for NVPlumber, but I can speculate. I would speculate that he does not feel the need to “join them.” Perhaps the reason is that he understands that “liberals” are not the only people who care about the feelings of their fellow human beings. It’s just that “liberals”seem to smugly view themselves as the only people of compassion.

Okay, now to get back on topic . . .

[ogre]

JTUR on anecdotal evidence:

In response to this post by JBMallory

Originally Posted by JBMallory "People here have posted REAL encounters where carrying a gun might very well have saved their life. ."

jtur wrote (page 16, post 155):

"That is called 'anecdotal evidence', and it will invariably get you an F in any debate class."

Hmmm, interesting that you borrow my analogy about a college debate class. I guess I should be flattered.

More to the point, anecdotal evidence would not necessarily get you an F. Anecdotal evidence can be useful in supporting an argument. In general it is not the strongest kind of evidence, but it can be useful as one kind of evidence in support of an argument.

But to another point, jtur also wrote this invitation to use anecdotal evidence against the OP's premise:

Page 1, post 7: "Instead of just wiggling and giggling, why doesn't somebody provide us with a list of enthusiastic gun advocates who have also excelled in some other field. Besides Dick Cheney."

JTUR followed this up with the following post, implying that more anecdotal evidence was needed to satisfy himself that the OP's premise had been refuted:

Page 2, post 15: "Les Claypool? Les Claypool, an avid angler who occasionally hunts, is one of the four names you can come up with to prove that gun nuts are well represented among successful Americans?"

And another point: JTUR, what about your recollections (page 8, post 75) that you have spent time in dangerous cities, etc., without the protection of a gun, and never been threatened or been the victim of a violent crime, and the statement that no one you know has been the victim of a violent crime (amended in a later post to the observation that SO FAR AS YOU KNOW, no one you know has been a victim)? This of course being presented as a rhetorical question about the presumed minimal need to carry a gun for safety.

There seems to be some shapeshifting going on with the rules jtur presumes to set for this discussion. He encourages the use of anecdotal evidence. He even uses it himself, with those I've-never-been-a-crime-victim posts. Then later in the thread, when someone references anecdotal evidence which would tend to support the position jtur opposes, he says anecdotal evidence is no good.

So what's going on jtur? Do the rules change as you find convenient? Or can we have some consistency here?

[SCGranny]

Originally Posted by stycotl

that is because one of the fundamental differences between someone like him and someone like you, at least regarding internet communications, is that with you, there is still an acknowledgment that you are dealing with human beings and therefore you maintain some level of respect.

with him, he is just dealing with anonymous "profiles" on the web which he chooses to use and abuse because it likely makes him feel tough or cool or something along those lines.

unfortunately, there are a number of people in every debate on the net, on every side of every debate as well, that get their kicks this way. i am pretty darn confident that it is triggered by the same conditions that create bullies in the real world: often lack of self confidence, lack of purpose, lack of healthy family life, lack of education, lack of real world education, etc.

they all lead to immaturity and a mediocre ability to critically think through the issues.

Excellent summation.

[robertjohnson]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Instead of just wiggling and giggling, why doesn't somebody provide us with a list of enthusiastic gun advocates who have also excelled in some other field. Besides Dick Cheney.

The NRA claims four million members, which is one out of fifty adult Americans. NRA mSo one out of fifty American university professors should be embers, and it would be easy for you to name a bunch of them. Or one out of 50 members of symphony orchestras. Or one out of fifty elected members of city councils. Or one out of fifty members of the New York Stock Exchange. Or one out of fifty Academy Award winning actors, or medal-winning Olympians. Name some.

Unless spending every weekend at a shooting range doesn't leave enough time to pursue any other activity.

If somebody posts an OP that you disagree with, you have two choices: Provide data or evidence that they are wrong, or insult them and hope they go away. So far, we have the predictable response.

If your correct then a high number of these professors should be Republicans.
Between 33 and 50% depending on the numbers used.
Also, you are a _____-______ and _____ ____ __!
So now I've done both. Sort of.

[SCGranny]

And actually, I was an elected member of a City Council, and it was well known (even prior to my election) that I carried. So did the Mayor and two other members of Council. (The others were either too old with deteriorating eyesight or the required liberal.)

[GregW]

I am one of the "liberals" on this board and, when I think it appropriate, I carry a firearm for self protection. What does "liberal" or "conservative" have to do with protecting me and mine from assault?

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by KevinE

In general people who are into firearms and hunting tend to be losers. Why is there such a fetish for these things when they have never been linked to anyone successful?

How funny. You mean those guys who spend hundreds of dollars for hunting trips and target practice are losers?

Maybe you should read up on why Americans are allowed to own firearms. It isn't even about hunting. Thomas Jefferson explains it best. Back to the books for you!

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by GregW

I am one of the "liberals" on this board and, when I think it appropriate, I carry a firearm for self protection. What does "liberal" or "conservative" have to do with protecting me and mine from assault?

The answer is...absolutely nothing, which is why I used the word in quotes, and in reference to only one person, who PROFESSES to be a "liberal' and deigns to speak on behalf of a large group of people in an embarrassing and ignorant fashion. The whole premise of the OP of this thread was to start a manure slinging match, and when his target group did not respond in such a fashion, one other poster attempted to get the excrement flying by jumping on the bandwagon. When things still stayed in a mostly civil decorum, the personal attacks and insults came out of the scabbard. Still, the firearms owners that have responded here tried valiantly to respond in civil fashion, knowing that doing otherwise would merely go to prove the OP's and his one advocates, position, that all shooting enthusiasts are ignorant buffoons. It would be far to easy to just get mad, and let loose with vile invective in return, and considering the content of some of the posts, that is what was desired and expected. It would appear that people who exercise their rights under the 2nd amendment and enjoy the shooting sport are not quite so low browed as a couple people would have us believe.