Printable View
Not really, no. Get your shit checked out. You seem to have loose screws which do not allow you to think right.Quote:
Originally Posted by threeinchesfromthefloor
I have lobbied for you to get your old account back. All you have to do is not be an asshole for some time. But this very easy task seems to be an impossibility for you.
Jack, it is unreasonable to lay out reason to an unreaonalbe person.
One can try, but it's an uphill climb. The hill looks like a tangent graph thoQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://i.redd.it/vr9b2bgnj8x21.jpg
Thoughts?
The sad thing is it's hard to tell if that sign is serious or sarcastic.
You have not been paying attention: the second amendment actually saves lives. The more guns the more lives saved. It's simple meths. Get educated!
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...npersoning_us/
I need everyone who ever told me that I am wrong to say that these people are all and without exception fucking retarded, to apologize to me personally pronto.
Damn I need to start reading up on this stuff. I thought it was thoughts and prayers that saved lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's not how gun control works. I don't think people who are "gun sober" are banned, are they? Are there places in America where owning a gun is compulsory? No? So it's not like telling drivers they have to be drunk to drive, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I do just about get the point it's trying to make. But it's incoherent and ill thought out.
The pro gun people will say owning a gun potentially saves lives. That's true when the gun is in the right hands, for example, an armed cop. A car under the control of a drunk is never in the right hands though.
I think they're saying if you enforce gun control laws, then the people who will lose their guns are normal, law-abiding citizens, and the criminals will still have guns.
But you're right it's a dumb analogy.
In the UK gun crime is very rare. So no, gun control doesn't mean the criminals all get to keep their guns.
The CDC estimates that defensive use of guns saves between 500K and 3M lives per year.
How many people die in mass shootings?
Fixed your post. You almost had it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Lawmakers are guarded by Capitol Police officers armed with high-capacity ammunition magazines. They need them apparently because they are guarding very important people.
But YOU can't have a high-capacity ammunition magazine to protect the people you love. Because the people you love apparently aren't important enough.
Having one set of rules for the rulers, and another set of rules for the ruled is exactly why we broke away from Britain. Going back to that just because "ZOMG a kid is dead" is probably the most unamerican idea anyone has ever had.
Why don't studies reflect how much safer your shooty toys make you? If they save so many lives, shouldn't people with shooty shoots be less likely to die from firearm related incidents accidents and negligence? Why is it more? Do you think they need higher capacity magazines?
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...s/#fn-440373-1
Studies in the footnotes. Looks pretty well researched.
Hold on there, little Billy!Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is like asking why people with swimming pools don't drown lessQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Gun crime is also rare in Canada. I think you've confused correlation and causation professor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Oskar, did you know that owning a chainsaw drastically increases your chances of being injured in a chainsaw related incident.
Should we outlaw chainsaws?
If not, why are guns different?
That is literally what you said. You said up to 3 million lives are saved by guns every year. You said high capacity magazines will protect your family. You are the one claiming: more chainsaws = less chainsaw accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Rare relative to the US, and Canada has stricter gun control laws than the US. Not as rare as in the UK, which has the strictest laws of all three.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Fit a line to the number of gun owners/capita and incidence of gun crime in different countries Archimedes. Twist yourself in knots trying to argue it's meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Gahead, i dares ya.
No. I'm claiming more chainsaws = less trees and more guns = less crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It must be easy to win arguments when you get to make up what I'm saying.
To be fair, I think he was saying owning a chainsaw protects you from other people with chainsaws. Or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think he's saying that when you can't defend your original position, you turn it into a metaphor and then defend the metaphor.
Oh looky here: someone's done the easy bit for you.
Attachment 1132
Now try to explain why the US isn't retarded about guns.
See if you can do it without getting yourself banned.
:popcorn:
^^ This is fucking retarded. You want to explain yourself or you want to move on?Quote:
But YOU can't have a high-capacity ammunition magazine to protect the people you love. Because the people you love apparently aren't important enough.
Me:
Oskar's interpretation:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
And you guys wonder why I get frustratedQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
What needs explaining? Is that not self explanatory?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Can you explain why the Capitol Police should have access to guns that I can't have access to? Is there some reason they have more rights than I do?
Whatever you tried to attach isn't showing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can literally copy/paste images into the text box, poop.
https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...achmentid=1132
It did, but I think it's a thumbnail and not the original image, if you enlarge it the words are fuzzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Can you not even follow the conversation you're taking part in?
You said guns save lives.
Oskar called bullshit.
You then started talking about chainsaws.
Then you went on to swimming pools.
Do yourself a favour, and stop watching Trump speeches. You are beginning to be as incoherent as he is.
I just see a blue link that says "attachment 1132". If I click it I get this message
Quote:
Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator
No I didn't. The CDC did. I just said I believe them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And hasn't explained why. He just said "something something accidents", which makes zero sense because a defensive use of a firearm should almost never be accidental.Quote:
Oskar called bullshit.
I tried that before and it didn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Still doesn't work.
Attachment 1133
Get google chrome?
Attachment 1134Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Attachment 1135Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
nope, firefoxQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Firefox in 2019 is like IE in 2009
This might not seem related, but it is. And the question is mainly for poop.
Should they ban fighting in hockey?
No. They should ban chainsaws in hockey though. And swimming pools.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Now how about you talk yourself in circles about that chart with the gun deaths on it?
Really it's not even close to a good analogy with guns.
Turns out it's a lot easier to hurt a guy with your stick or by ramming your shoulder into his head when he isn't looking than to punch him when he is standing there defending himself.
Learn how to post a picture and I willQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If it's so much easier, then why does that happen so much less than fighting?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Weird how your responses turn into dick-hole memes as soon as logic starts to chip away at your agrument.
Do they not have televisions where you live? Have you ever watched the NHL?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roY9m4gmgsU
Weird how you change the topic as soon as you start to lose the argument, which is usually your first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Yes they should ban fighting in hockey. Are hockey players exempt from law? Can they stab each other? Can they smoke crack? Can they commit wire fraud? Why let them assault other people? It's not boxing, it's not a disciplined fighting sport, so it's unacceptable.
Except it's great entertainment, so whatever, let them at each other.
Yes I have. And in my observation, fighting is much more prevalent than spearing injuries and concussions caused by dirty checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And I believe you know why fighting is still allowed in hockey. It's because if guys couldn't fight, they would settle grudges with their wooden clubs, shoe-knives, or by launching their bodies at each other while moving 20mph.
And guys can't line up Wayne Gretzky for a punishing body check, even a legal one, because it means exchanging knuckles with McSoarley
The fighting deters worse crime. The only way to stop a bad goon is with a good goon.
Guns deter crime. Guns deter government tyranny. Defensive gun use saves more lives than are lost to offensive gun use. What exactly is your beef with guns and hockey fights?
The game would not exist otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My apologies, I thought the game in question was rather like field hockey that girls play here, only on ice. I'd fucking love field hockey if they let the girls fight each other, fuck yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You can't run into someone on the street either, but you can in hockey, eggball, rugby, etc. without it being considered illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Similarly, it's in the rules that if you and another guy both want to fight, you do, and then you each get 5 minutes in the penalty box. The worst that can happen in a fight is someone breaks their hand hitting the other guy on the helmet.
With a stick or elbow you can break bones, knock out teeth, and give someone a concussion pretty easily, given how fast they're skating.
Footballers aren't allowed to fight, and very occasionally, a footballer is charged with assault for breaking the law which they are subject to just as mere mortals are.
You can tackle a player, but that's a critical aspect of the game. Rather like punching in the head in boxing.
You haven't watched in a long time then. Most of the damage players get from others players today is from illegal hits, not fighting. And it's always worse damage than a black eye or bruised knuckles.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Confirms the above; these guys played in the 1980s and 90s lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Watch a game that took place in the last ten years if you want to argue about how the game is played ffs.
The only way goons get stopped at all nowadays is if the league suspends them.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Fighting is a critical aspect of hockey.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They had some incidents in the 70s when goon hockey was in its heyday where players would go into the stands and beat up fans. A few of them got charged I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The guy who did this also got charged.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTbhwCedkQs
STOP MOVING THE FUCKING GOALPOSTQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I said "fighting is more prevalent". Which is true. You apparently can't dispute it without a heavy dose of reducicus el bananarious, so let's just say that I"m right here and move on
If by 'critical' you mean there's less than one fight per game on average, then yeah I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Attachment 1140
Edit: Sorry I meant less than one fight every three games.
The question, if there is one, is what kinds and frequency of injuries come from fighting relative to dirty hits or even clean hits or accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Fighting is relatively harmless compared to the rest of the game.
LOL, and you just got through deriding me for 'not watching' hockey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How are they measuring fights on that chart?
Go find another chart showing punches thrown per game.
No, that's not the question. Never wasQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You reducicus el banarium'd yourself into that
No, it's a critical aspect of what makes it not boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Unless I'm missing something. What competitive or tactical advantage do you gain from having a fight? Do you win possession?
None. it can even be a disadvantage because there is a rule that if one player clearly instigates the fight he gets an extra two minute penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's usually one of three things that starts a fight:
1. The other guy is being a dick and you're sick of it so you fight him. Maybe he's jabbing you in the back of the knees with his stick or calling your wife a whore or both.
2. The other guy put a dirty hit on one of your teammates sometime in the last two or three games and you're sticking up for your teammate.
3. Your team is losing and you're trying to get them and/or the crowd fired up.
there are two arguments supporting fighting in hockey. They are:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
1) It would be far more gruesome and dangerous without fighting. Guys are armed with sticks and have swords attached to their feet. They move at 20mph in full padding. They are lethal weapons flying past each other on ice. If there was no outlet for people to settle scores, things would get ugly real fucking fast.
2) It's really easy to nullify a skilled skater's scoring threat by putting him on his ass. Superstar players would get creamed on a regular basis if there was no one protecting them. Teams have "enforcers" whose job it is to knock the teeth out of anyone who puts a hit on the guy who is responsible for ticket sales.
I get why they fight, I was pointing out it's not a "critical aspect" of the game. You could play hockey perfectly fine if it was not allowed, unlike tackling in football, or punching the head in boxing.
No you couldn't. I just explained why. I gave you two reasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
1) Everyone would die
2) All the good players would have significantly shorter careers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Good explanation. Too bad it's from twenty years ago.
Teams don't have enforcers any more. If someone hits your star player in the head with their stick then someone on your team just goes back and hit the other team's star in the head with his stick. It's a rough fucking game with or without fighting.
Ong is right; you don't actually need fighting. It's just fun to watch.
FalseQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They're just harder to spot because they're better skaters now.
back in the days you're talking about, there were 3rd line defenders who couldn't even pass. Their whole job was punching. Now, they're expected to score a little too.
But girls manage to play it perfectly fine in fields across England all the time. Nobody gets smacked with sticks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You're credibility as a hockey scholar would be much higher if you hadn't name dropped two guys who retired 20 years ago.
I take issue with your use of the following words:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
manage
play
perfectly
fine
Girls aren't usually dirty at sports. They're also weaklings.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Coming back to the main topic, if hockey players were allowed to carry guns during the game would there be more or fewer gun deaths in hockey?
I went for mass appeal. I didn't expect anyone else to know who Sydney Crosby and Ryan Reaves are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I think the analogy is pretty apt. When teams have goons....everybody behaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
More guns = less crime.
Between 500K and 3M life-saving defensive gun uses per year according to the CDC. How many people die from guns?
Everyone seems to be dropping stats like this is some kind of game that can be won by body count. So fine, guns save 3 million people. Guns kill 1% of that, and 2/3 of those are suicides
guns win
They don't behave whether there are goons or not. You're just repeating outdated dogma that you saw some dufus on ESPN using in the 1990s as an argument to not ban fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Whatever you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
What are the guns saving people from? Measles? Why is the CDC interested in this anyways? Or is there another CDC I don't know about...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
CrimeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Coming back to this, if the threat of violence is enough to deter violence, then why not let players carry guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You (or CDC or whoever's quote you made up) said 'life-saving'. I'm just wondering what their lives are being threatened by? Is it a guy with a chainsaw? A swimming pool? A gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Seems that we agree that arming NHL players would drive league-wide violence to absolute 0Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I would say you need to adjust your tinfoil hat because the microwaves are still getting to your brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I told you. Crime. If you want a more specific answer: Violent Crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So why don't they make the game so much safer by letting everyone carry a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Why not hand out guns to people in the stands too? That way if someone tries to take your seat while you're in the can...blammo!
By people with guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Because no one will buy a ticket to stare at an empty sheet of ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Because communism is bad. I don't support handouts.Quote:
Why not hand out guns to people in the stands too?
Works for me.Quote:
That way if someone tries to take your seat while you're in the can...blammo!
PossiblyQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I know where you're going with this.....I'm just gonna let it happen. The faster you go, the more satisfying it will be when you splatter against the brick wall of logic I'm about to drop in your path.
The players will only be allowed to shoot each other in self-defense.
The hockey stick clearly is not enough of a deterrent to violence in hockey. Guns are needed.
Seems we've come full circle then.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Have we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
TheSpoonald may apologize for twice breaking the rules of our forum, and twice further disrespecting them with an alt account.
OR
TheSpoonald may have a permanent ban as well.
This game is over.
You acknowledge that you understand our rules, and apologize for breaking them in the past, and promise to not break them in the future
or you're not welcome here.
So you have a situation where good guys with guns are preventing bad guys with guns from killing other good guys.
And yet, good guys still get killed by guns. In the US this happens a lot compared to most civilized places.
Now, you can either make it hard for anyone to have a gun and reduce gun crime and homocide rates. Or, you can try to make sure every good guy has a gun. And if some of those good guys actually turn out to be bad guys who go and shoot up a school, well that's the price of freedom. Sometimes people just have to die.
Then stop playing. Demanding a forced-apology serves nothing and no one.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But fine, here you go: I'm sorry
Know that was totally insincere and merely an empty gesture to get you to shut the fuck up. Now I suggest you never talk to me again.
Finally, you get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
lol bye banana.
Done deal, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Bye, bye.
Countdown to rage-posting account in 30...29...28