Glocks and Duckfaces: Americans flaunt their new firearms on Instagram and Twitter. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986447]No, it wasn't obvious, it was obvious you were just speaking out of your ass.[/QUOTE] But it really was obvious. 50% are dumber than the average wouldn't be true if I didn't assume Gaussian. Are you trying to say I didn't assume Gaussian?

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986412]The 2nd amendment has been deliberately misinterpreted and misused to provide another method of leeching money from US citizens, not by respecting an [I]inherent[/I] right bestowed upon the [i]divine American[/I] citizen. How does that argument counter my original comment? When did I say anything about how much anything mattered to anything else? Was it when I literally guessed that the 2nd amendment was written a hundred years ago instead of [I]longer[/I] ago, making it even [I]more[/I] archaic and out of touch with a more world we currently live in?[/QUOTE] I have no idea how it leeches money from US citizens when gun ownership is a choice, but the reason why the 2nd Amendment is held as a reason for keeping guns is because at the time it represented a culture that wanted to avoid an oppressive government, and it has been passed down over time, and also changed over time to mean different things to different generations. In Reconstruction, the right to bear arms would have essentially made it possible for the Southern blacks to actually keep their freedoms that were gained before the Democrats began steamrolling whole states. In World War 2, the right to bear arms became an issue of preventing foreign invasion. Now, it's about personal defense and maintaining a cultural tradition passed down from generation to generation. Why does Chinese cuisine almost exclusively avoid using the oven? Because fuel was scarce all the way up to the rapid modernization in the Cold War. But even now, the vast majority of Chinese food is steamed or cooked on a pan, even though fuel is plentiful. Tradition is a powerful thing, and discounting it ignores a vast amount of reasons for keeping something.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986457]Yeah but in a thesis defense, hard numbers and facts play a role, not "people need big guns for recreational purposes".[/QUOTE] Why are you arguing with made-up and nonsensical stats and false facts

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986464]And statistics show that most of the guns used in crime are pistols, not "assault weapons"[/QUOTE] I think preventability also plays a role.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986467]But it really was obvious. 50% are dumber than the average wouldn't be true if I didn't assume Gaussian. Are you trying to say I didn't assume Gaussian?[/QUOTE] Yes I am, I'm saying that you just blurted out something that has absolutely no grounds whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986445]No I just assumed Gaussian distribution, wasn't that obvious when I said "50% are dumber than the average gun owner" ?[/QUOTE] Sure, but you can't just assume Gaussian distribution. Unless you have evidence suggesting otherwise that can test the normality of the distribution.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;38986489]Why are you arguing with made-up and nonsensical stats and false facts[/QUOTE] IQ distribution is Gaussian and since I couldn't be arsed to look up smartness statistics of gun owners I ... extrapolated.

I'm going to ignore what is probably going to be the done-to-death gun debates that have most likely clogged up this thread and just jump straight into my response to the first post [QUOTE=nick_9_8;38985399]In Australia, all guns are illegial, so could someone explain to me the logical reasons of owning an assault rifle? Because frankly, I don't see the point. If you reallllly wanted defense wouldn't you buy a pistol? Why would you need a gun that shoots 40 bullets in one mag...[/QUOTE] Assault weapons =/= Assault rifles. Watch this video: [video=youtube;LB8gNCnLDZI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8gNCnLDZI[/video]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38986425]Your credibility was lost not only because you were talking out of your ass, but because you compared firearm ownership to wanting to posses nuclear weapons. You can't safely detonate a nuclear weapon for recreation purposes, but you can fire a firearm safely. Comparing firearms as a hobby to nuclear weapons is beyond stupid, and silly. Your "~actual argument ~" is fucking stupid and you should be ashamed.[/QUOTE] Hahaha, my point about nukes was just because the person I was talking about was saying that they should be able to but whatever they want, whenever they want, without the government having a say in it at all. If you actually meant that in the first place, you probably should've quoted that, instead of highlighting the part where I guessed when the specific amendment was written :v: and anyway, if you want to pursue the argument about nuclear weapons, "You can't safely detonate a nuclear weapon for recreational purposes" cough cough all the nuclear weapon tests the US ever did ever, could have just as easily been done for recreational instead of scientific purposes, with exactly the same outcomes :v: and I don't actually see a proper counter argument to my ~actual argument~ apart from "it's fucking stupid lol"

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986493]Yes I am, I'm saying that you just blurted out something that has absolutely no grounds whatsoever.[/QUOTE] You are ? Dude I can really and honestly assure you that I REALLY really really DID assume Gaussian distribution of smartness of gun owners, lightning may smite me if I am lying.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986503]IQ distribution is Gaussian and since I couldn't be arsed to look up smartness statistics of gun owners I ... extrapolated.[/QUOTE] Sure, but even then you still can't assume that the population of gun owners is representative of the overall population of the US. I think it's important to err on the side of caution when it comes to using statistics.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986510]"You can't safely detonate a nuclear weapon for recreational purposes" cough cough all the nuclear weapon tests the US ever did ever,[/QUOTE] There's a massive, and I literally mean MASSIVE difference between recreation and testing the detonation, radiation and destructive yield of a nuclear weapon if it were ever to be used in combat. Stop talking out of your ass.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986510]Hahaha, my point about nukes was just because the person I was talking about was saying that they should be able to but whatever they want, whenever they want, without the government having a say in it at all. If you actually meant that in the first place, you probably should've quoted that, instead of highlighting the part where I guessed when the specific amendment was written :v: and anyway, if you want to pursue the argument about nuclear weapons, "You can't safely detonate a nuclear weapon for recreational purposes" cough cough all the nuclear weapon tests the US ever did ever, could have just as easily been done for recreational instead of scientific purposes, with exactly the same outcomes :v: and I don't actually see a proper counter argument to my ~actual argument~ apart from "it's fucking stupid lol"[/QUOTE] Well, the nuclear analogy fails because nuclear testing often resulted in areas that could not be inhabited due to radioactive contamination. Bikini Atoll is notorious for this. The pilots that had to fly through the clouds in order to gather samples also had a mortality rate from cancer that was multiple orders of magnitude higher than expected from a population.

[QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;38986498]Sure, but you can't just assume Gaussian distribution. Unless you have evidence suggesting otherwise that can test the normality of the distribution.[/QUOTE] Actually since IQ is Gaussian the likelyness of IQ in gun owners being Gaussian too is pretty damn high and it's up to you to provide evidence of it being otherwise and with millions of gun owners(aka samples) I really think you can't, as any skewness vanishes with high enough sample rates. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_central_tendency[/url] (You see, I do know my statistics or at least wikipedia but there's no difference to that in an internet debate so there's that) 50% of the millions of gun owners are dumber than the average one. While we are at it I hope the debate got ridiculous enough to entertain the readers. It was a pleasure, many thanks to the players, mainly Zillamaster and Hunt3r.j2. Good night and have a safe way home.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986572]Actually since IQ is Gaussian the likelyness of IQ in gun owners being Gaussian too is pretty damn high and it's up to you to provide evidence of it being otherwise and with millions of gun owners I really think you can't as any skewness vanishes with high enough sample rates. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_central_tendency[/url] (You see, I do know my statistics or at least wikipedia but there's no difference in an internet debate so there's that) While we are at it I hope the debate got ridiculous enough to entertain the readers. It was a pleasure, many thanks to the players, mainly Zillamaster and Hunt3r.j2. Good night and have a safe way home.[/QUOTE] Sure, but the issue still stands as to where the mean/median would be.

[QUOTE=Killuah;38986572]Actually since IQ is Gaussian the likelyness of IQ in gun owners being Gaussian too is pretty damn high and it's up to you to provide evidence of it being otherwise and with millions of gun owners(aka samples) I really think you can't, as any skewness vanishes with high enough sample rates. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_central_tendency[/url] (You see, I do know my statistics or at least wikipedia but there's no difference to that in an internet debate so there's that) 50% of the millions of gun owners are dumber than the average one. While we are at it I hope the debate got ridiculous enough to entertain the readers. It was a pleasure, many thanks to the players, mainly Zillamaster and Hunt3r.j2. Good night and have a safe way home.[/QUOTE] I should point out that IQ is NOT a good measure of intelligence, according to psychologists. Intelligence is theorized to be divided among [url=http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm]9 different types of intelligences[/url] and IQ tests only really test for logical-mathematic and linguistic iirc.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38985531]This isn't a hobby, it's panic buying, hoarding and price fixing.[/QUOTE] Same thing happened right after they announced Hostess was on its way out.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986510]Hahaha, my point about nukes was just because the person I was talking about was saying that they should be able to but whatever they want, whenever they want, without the government having a say in it at all. If you actually meant that in the first place, you probably should've quoted that, instead of highlighting the part where I guessed when the specific amendment was written :v: and anyway, if you want to pursue the argument about nuclear weapons, "You can't safely detonate a nuclear weapon for recreational purposes" cough cough all the nuclear weapon tests the US ever did ever, could have just as easily been done for recreational instead of scientific purposes, with exactly the same outcomes :v: and I don't actually see a proper counter argument to my ~actual argument~ apart from "it's fucking stupid lol"[/QUOTE] You realize nobody is arguing that purchasing a firearm shouldn't require any sort of government control, right? As is, if you want to purchase a rifle in the US, you have be 18 and be able to pass a back round check or get a permit depending on state. And if you would like a handgun, you have to be over 21 to purchase one, and pass a backround check. So right off the bat your argument is nullified because nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't have a say in basic gun control. And your comparison to nuclear weapons, again, is silly. You can detonate a Nuclear recreationally if you want, but again, theres no way you can do it in a safe manner. Many of the nuclear tests the US performed still left the area they were performed in devastated and barren. And thats my point, you can fire a rifle or handgun safely for target practice, hunting, skeet shooting, or just firing at the range for fun. You can't do the same with a nuclear weapon. So again, your argument is broken, nullified, and fucking dumb.

I like how literally everyone is ignoring the fact that my "nuclear weapons" analogy was literally just used to show how the person I was replying to didn't indicate any boundaries [I]at all[/I] to their "people should be able to buy whatever they want to" argument, and have instead just attacked that part of my argument, before just saying "lol ur argument sucks" to the rest of it. Great arguing skills guys, A+. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986443]Then why is the magna carta so important if it's so old.[/QUOTE] Literally quoted from the fucking Wikipedia page of all things, "Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form." apparently it isn't as important as you might think, despite what your history teachers might have said :v: [QUOTE=Hunt3r.j2;38986486]I have no idea how it leeches money from US citizens when gun ownership is a choice[/QUOTE] Okay, maybe I worded it wrong there. But it's essentially changed from being a necessary form of defence to something that can literally just be bought the same way a car can be bought. [quote]In World War 2, the right to bear arms became an issue of preventing foreign invasion.[/quote] Something the UK and countless other nations did without their citizens managed without owning firearms [quote]Now, it's about personal defense[/quote] See the sentence above [quote]and maintaining a cultural tradition passed down from generation to generation.[/quote] Hahaha, totally a reason that [I]devices designed to end the life of another human being[/I] should be readily available to people who don't actually need them. [quote]Why does Chinese cuisine almost exclusively avoid using the oven? Because fuel was scarce all the way up to the rapid modernization in the Cold War. But even now, the vast majority of Chinese food is steamed or cooked on a pan, even though fuel is plentiful. Tradition is a powerful thing, and discounting it ignores a vast amount of reasons for keeping something.[/quote] Again. [I]Devices designed to kill people[/I]. Devices designed to end the life of another living, breathing human being. Devices used to transport an individual from the realm of the living to the realm of the non-living. To stop someone "being" and turn them into someone who "was", who is "no longer", who "used to be". How many other ways can I say this?

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986679]I like how literally everyone is ignoring the fact that my "nuclear weapons" analogy was literally just used to show how the person I was replying to didn't indicate any boundaries [I]at all[/I] to their "people should be able to buy whatever they want to" argument, and have instead just attacked that part of my argument, before just saying "lol ur argument sucks" to the rest of it. Great arguing skills guys, A+.[/QUOTE] When you stop acting like a complete cunt, maybe we might want to argue with you.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;38986696]When you stop acting like a complete cunt, maybe we might want to argue with you.[/QUOTE] Attack me instead of my argument more, that'll teach me. Oh wait, no it won't. Ad hominem is a thing that exists, FYI.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986679] Something the UK and countless other nations did without their citizens managed without owning firearms[/quote] poland and france were able to defend themselves fantastically, and surely an armed civilian population wouldn't have helped them at all [quote]Hahaha, totally a reason that [I]devices designed to end the life of another human being[/I] should be readily available to people who don't actually need them.[/quote] please respond to my previous post [quote]Again. [I]Devices designed to kill people[/I]. Devices designed to end the life of another living, breathing human being. Devices used to transport an individual from the realm of the living to the realm of the non-living. To stop someone "being" and turn them into someone who "was", who is "no longer", who "used to be". How many other ways can I say this?[/QUOTE] instead of thinking of how many ways you can say that, try thinking of how many other daily tools used for things like cooking, sports, and self defense began as weapons designed to end another's life or to make other weapons more efficient from the top of my head: helicopters, jets, GPS, the internet, interchangeable parts, Jeeps, bows and arrows, javelins, knives...

Lol, Sobotnik coming into another thread asking stupid questions to start arguments even though he doesn't support a weapons ban.

as a matter of fact I'll repost my previous argument to better facilitate this discussion [QUOTE=cccritical;38986429][img]http://magzip.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/130420dam.jpg[/img] look at this -HIGHLY LETHAL WEAPON- originally designed to KILL we don't [i]need[/i] it, we should ban it for the safety of everyone [img]http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/portlavacawave.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/45/34583a30-8678-11e0-bb1a-001cc4c002e0/4ddc6bdd9f975.image.jpg[/img] look at this fucking criminal scum and his murderous weapon! that thing he's holding was DESIGNED to kill other humans! if you look at the statistics behind them, they've been used in [i]hundreds of wars[/i] and have killed tens of thousands of people! and that little shit is able to get his hands on one? unthinkable! we need to find this psychopath and eviscerate him where he stands [img]http://images2.sina.com/english/sports/p/2008/0823/U135P200T1D181031F14DT20080823031148.jpg[/img] the fuck is this shit? is this cunt about to throw a javelin? you might have noticed, that one looks stunningly similar to the pilums the romans used when they systematically murdered everyone around them! this lunatic not only owns such a dangerous weapon, but is actually trained to throw it as accurately as possible, and actually treats that as a form of entertainment! I've already alerted the Ministry of Love and they're assembling a hit squad as we speak[/QUOTE] please, somebody, tell me if I'm wrong about any of this both of those weapons have killed countless more humans than guns ever have, and, like guns, they're now used for recreational sports: all three are featured in the olympic games, played with variants designed specifically for competition and not slaughter

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38985467]Do people even need those guns. I doubt that most of the time they won't even use them, and just let them collect dust in the attic.[/QUOTE] If you let your gun collect dust in the attic, you do not need to own a gun. I clean my shotgun maybe once a month, even when I have not shot it in a awhile to keep it from getting rusted. I own a shotgun to use it in competition trap and skeet shooting, so I kinda need one. But I would gladly buy any other fire arm just to go to the range and shoot.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986679] Something the UK and countless other nations did without their citizens managed without owning firearms [/QUOTE] Uk managed to get buttfucked by air raids and buzzbombs multiple times though.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986679] Again. [I]Devices designed to kill people[/I]. Devices designed to end the life of another living, breathing human being. Devices used to transport an individual from the realm of the living to the realm of the non-living. To stop someone "being" and turn them into someone who "was", who is "no longer", who "used to be". How many other ways can I say this?[/QUOTE] Firearms are not exclusively used for killing people. Theres several recreation hobbies that include firearms that hurt nobody.

[QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;38986821]Uk managed to get buttfucked by air raids and buzzbombs multiple times though.[/QUOTE] 'cause hitler didn't have the balls or the manpower to invade

Silly Americans. Too bad its too late for strict laws like Australia.

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38986841]Silly Americans. Too bad its too late for strict laws like Australia.[/QUOTE] why is it too bad