We Unite Gaming

General Discussion / Entertainment => The All-Seeing Eye => Topic started by: New Oomomo on September 23, 2016, 10:20:07 pm



Title: 2016 Election
Post by: New Oomomo on September 23, 2016, 10:20:07 pm
 :)


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Permanent Poopface on September 24, 2016, 04:46:14 pm
CHIZZLES MOM


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Handass on September 24, 2016, 11:02:13 pm
CHIZZLES MOM


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: jd111 on September 25, 2016, 10:04:12 am
Deez Nutz


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Laughing Turd on September 25, 2016, 03:19:25 pm
I honestly don't know who to vote for.  :-\

CHIZZLES MOM

I forgot all about this


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Handass on September 25, 2016, 04:14:31 pm
I CHANGE MY VOTE TO PECK


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 26, 2016, 07:36:23 am
wTzzz is the only one qualified. But I have a feeling he is Trump's alter ego.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 26, 2016, 01:14:59 pm
Anyone who takes away guns.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 26, 2016, 02:00:30 pm
Anyone who takes away guns.

Molon Labe


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 26, 2016, 02:10:52 pm
You're such a little rebel. So cute.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Laughing Turd on September 26, 2016, 02:14:27 pm
Anyone who takes away guns.

why do you feel this way?


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 26, 2016, 02:52:30 pm
Because anyone who advocates for the right to bear arms doesn't care about the fact that people are dying for an archaic law. In 1787, the possibility of a British attack was high, and it made sense to carry a musket so that you could join in and fight for your independence. There is no army invading your country right now that you need a fucking AK-47 in your closet to protect yourself. The world changes, but the US has totally failed to adapt and it's created so many problems it's absurd. You're aren't even close to qualified to be President if you can't understand the problems that guns have created.

"It protects me."

Bullshit it does. 99% of the time you're attacked, you don't have a chance to use that gun.

"But I'm trained and an expert."

You know, because in a sample size of six million attacks, clearly it's the people not knowing how to use them right. You are 20 times more likely to die from a gun in the United States than other developed countries. You are twice likely to commit suicide as a gun owner. Black on black gun deaths happen more frequently in the United States than any other developed country. That's not a race problem, that's a gun problem.




Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 26, 2016, 02:54:57 pm
"But there's gun control in Chicago and it has the highest amount of murders."

Let's place a cocaine addict in a circle, draw a line around him, and make sure there's no cocaine in that three foot circle around him, but on the outside of that circle, let's put so much cocaine that he can get it any time he wants and then wonder how he managed to get cocaine.

You want to stop gun violence, you don't stop it in one area, you stop it everywhere.





Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Turboweasle on September 26, 2016, 06:08:06 pm
Black on black gun deaths happen more frequently in the United States than any other developed country. That's not a race problem, that's a gun problem.

Not that I disagree with your overall argument, but in this particular case it's much more of a socioeconomic problem than a gun problem.  Guns certainly don't help the situation, but you'd still see a larger rate of violence within poorer communities/demographics with or without guns.  While it would help with lowering crime statistics, banning guns on its own would not address the underlying problem of income inequality, which in general perpetuates a culture of crime that goes on to use guns.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 26, 2016, 06:21:33 pm
Two guys throwing punches at each other is a hell of a lot better than two guys firing shots at each other. You're not going to hit a kid riding his bike 50 feet away with your fist. People are also a hell of a lot tougher when they have a weapon to inflict the pain for them.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: New Oomomo on September 26, 2016, 09:21:05 pm
Two guys throwing punches at each other is a hell of a lot better than two guys firing shots at each other. You're not going to hit a kid riding his bike 50 feet away with your fist. People are also a hell of a lot tougher when they have a weapon to inflict the pain for them.
get your ass on rocket league more. and giveme your crates. thnx


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 27, 2016, 07:57:31 am
Two guys throwing punches at each other is a hell of a lot better than two guys firing shots at each other. You're not going to hit a kid riding his bike 50 feet away with your fist. People are also a hell of a lot tougher when they have a weapon to inflict the pain for them.

Ah, the unrealistic response of an idealist who ignores that reality isn't as neatly packaged as his fantasies.

Molon Labe


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 27, 2016, 10:08:06 am
Reality is every other economically developed country with lower gun ownership rates than the United States.

I own a night club in the nations capital, we have metal detectors at the door. Not once has a gun ever been found on a body. No one in the building needs a gun for protection because no one has a gun.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 27, 2016, 10:21:45 am
And reality is those people in those countries have less ability to protect themselves in case of attack. What's your point? It's not like gun violence doesn't show up in those countries. Ask the people of Paris how their strict laws kept guns out of the hands of the terrorists and how a disarmed population was equipped to do anything about it. If you want to live in a society that ignores the dangers of the world and just hopes nothing happens to you, that's your prerogative. Stay put in Canada and mind your business. I'll stay here and continue to fight for my right to keep my personal defense under my control in the US.

You seem to be under the impression every other developed country has the same circumstances as the US. We are the hub of the worldwide drug trade filtered through mexico and south america. This results in extreme levels of gang activity and the violent crime associated with it in our inner cities. You trying to compare apples and oranges to make your point falls on deaf ears. We have very unique circumstances that means no amount of gun control will remove guns from the streets. As such, people should have the right to protect themselves.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: New Oomomo on September 27, 2016, 10:47:48 am
Shoot, forgot about those pictures ohio. I'll try to do that soon.  :D


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 27, 2016, 10:49:25 am
You aren't protecting yourself by owning a gun. Terrorist attacks happen if you own a gun or not.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 27, 2016, 11:49:48 am
You aren't protecting yourself by owning a gun. Terrorist attacks happen if you own a gun or not.

Owning a gun does nothing. Training and carrying one can certainly change the situation though. Had a room full of people been trained and carrying a gun for their own protection been there when a public shooting takes place, the outcomes can be vastly different.

The point is that I (and fundamental principles of American liberty) believe an individual is responsible for their own personal protection; that the government is not in a position to participate in that (the old adage that when seconds matter, police are only minutes away); and that every law abiding citizen should enjoy that freedom to be in charge of their own protection without government infringement. You are free to hand over your personal safety to a government or to chance and hope nothing happens to you, but I will not. A person only gets one life. I do not relinquish the protection of that life to anyone else.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 27, 2016, 03:19:36 pm
And had assault rifles been outlawed, you wouldn't need to defend yourself.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 28, 2016, 07:17:31 am
And had assault rifles been outlawed, you wouldn't need to defend yourself.

LOL. Yeah because "assault rifles" (what does that even mean because semi-auto, mag fed rifles have been around since the 1800s) are the only reason I would need to defend myself. That's hilarious. 99%+ of times someone needs a gun in self defense it is not a rifle they are threatened with. Talking about "assault rifles" is nothing but a talking point for ignorant people who know nothing about guns.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 28, 2016, 04:06:23 pm
99%+ someone needs a gun in self defends, they don't get a chance to use it anyways. Someone pulls a gun on you, and you proceed to pull yours out, you think they are just going to let you shoot them?


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 28, 2016, 04:07:39 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

"They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra."



Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 12:04:13 pm
They try to tweak the variables to make their point. However, John Lott has over and again proven they are dead wrong on those "studies."


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 12:05:29 pm
99%+ someone needs a gun in self defends, they don't get a chance to use it anyways. Someone pulls a gun on you, and you proceed to pull yours out, you think they are just going to let you shoot them?

This is why training is important. A well trained individual can defeat an armed assailant just about every single time. Go get some quality defensive pistol training so you have a clue what you're talking about and then get back to me.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 12:40:28 pm
Ohio is the guy that goes to the casino thinking has a strategy to win money even though everyone else loses.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 12:46:18 pm
I honestly can't believe you're using John Lott as a reference for why guns are good. He's a know joke, and his "facts" are made up. It's a miracle the GOP even uses him, but it makes sense considering it's impossible to find anyone credible who would actually advocate for guns.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:03:26 pm
John Lott's methodology is flawless. The problem is that some people disagree with the way the statistics are analysed. And that works both ways. The studies you cited also use the same methodology as Lott, they just place relevance and importance on other factors than Lott does to get their own conclusion.

Like I suggested, get training yourself. Learn the real world applications for yourself before trying to judge whose study to trust and which statistics are actually telling. The problem is that people like you (and those who conducted the studies you cited) have no real world experience on these issues. They sit in an office separated from reality and come up with what they think actually matters on the street. And in the end their conclusions are worthless.

As someone with training and a very good understanding of the issues involved in self defense law and incidents, I see Lott's studies as far more applicable to reality and find them to be spot on to how things actually work. Call it confirmation bias if you want as long as you don't lie to yourself in thinking you have no confirmation bias in your own point of view.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:06:10 pm
I honestly can't believe you're using John Lott as a reference for why guns are good. He's a know joke, and his "facts" are made up. It's a miracle the GOP even uses him, but it makes sense considering it's impossible to find anyone credible who would actually advocate for guns.

His facts come directly from FBI statistics. The only joke is people who attack him not for the truth of his research, but because his conclusions go against their beliefs. Which is exactly what you are doing. His methodology has stood up to peer review since the 90s.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 03:14:48 pm
Lott made up a second persona so that he could have someone agree with him. He was so insecure in his own writings that he had to make up a fictional person to agree with him. He's been ripped to shreds by numerous publications, made up facts, used facts wrong, been unable to produce documents on his facts, and is a laughing stock.

Come on Ohio, you're better than following this guy.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:15:12 pm
The fact of the matter is that it cannot be denied that this issue is very political in nature. On both sides. It is so far intertwined with politics that I'm confident we can never get truly accurate data from either side.

As such, I believe in freedom. I believe in individual rights. I stand against the taking of individual rights. And the matter of how effective firearms for self-defense are is a question for the individual who possesses that right to defend THEMSELVES. It should never be taken away based on statistics that can easily be manipulated.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 03:21:32 pm
The fact of the matter is, the NRA is funding people like Lott to make male cattle dung claims and drive propaganda for the use of guns, when there is ridiculous amounts of evidence to the contrary that guns shouldn't be for personal use.

There is no bullshit in the fact that you are more likely to die while carrying a gun than not.

There is no bullshit in the fact that armed civilians have stopped exactly zero mass shootings in the last 33 years.

There is no bullshit in the fact that more people die from accidental gun deaths every year than saving yourself from a criminal.

But you can argue whatever you want, it's people like you that set the world back, because your freedom to make silly decisions is going to cost millions of live over the course of time, and I want you to hold that on your conscience.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:22:43 pm
Lott made up a second persona so that he could have someone agree with him. He was so insecure in his own writings that he had to make up a fictional person to agree with him. He's been ripped to shreds by numerous publications, made up facts, used facts wrong, been unable to produce documents on his facts, and is a laughing stock.

Come on Ohio, you're better than following this guy.

I don't "follow" anyone. I have reviewed his studies as well as all those you have presented and many others on the topic. And I have found his data and conclusions persuasive.

While it's true he used a fake persona on an online forum to anonymously argue against those who were falsely attempting to discredit his study, none of that means the underlying study is somehow invalid. Even you can understand that logic.

People regularly attack him personally and attempt to conduct their own studies to disprove his conclusions, but don't be naive enough to think that isn't any more than political attacks because they know they can't attack the studies themselves.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:25:28 pm
The fact of the matter is, the NRA is funding people like Lott to make male cattle dung claims and drive propaganda for the use of guns, when there is ridiculous amounts of evidence to the contrary that guns shouldn't be for personal use.

Actually that's a lie. The NRA doesn't fund academic research. And if you read Lott's defamation case, the courts agreed with that fact.

But what IS fact, is that the Obama administration is attempting to use the Center for Disease Control (ridiculously claiming that gun violence is a disease) to fund his own biased research on the issues. And if you don't think that is more biased than Lott receiving a fellowship by the Olin family, then you are blind to your own biases. The FACT is that this is political on both sides.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 03:34:47 pm
Lott says something; it's not biased because guns are good

Someone disproves Lott; it's biased because guns are good

Got it.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 29, 2016, 03:38:38 pm
Actually that's been your position. Mine has been that both sides are biased. We need to recognize that fact and draw our own conclusions. Is reading that hard for you?


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 03:41:38 pm
There's only one conclusion on the side of facts. That's the point of them.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: New Oomomo on September 29, 2016, 06:10:43 pm
The fact of the matter is, the NRA is funding people like Lott to make male cattle dung claims and drive propaganda for the use of guns, when there is ridiculous amounts of evidence to the contrary that guns shouldn't be for personal use.

There is no bullshit in the fact that you are more likely to die while carrying a gun than not.

There is no bullshit in the fact that armed civilians have stopped exactly zero mass shootings in the last 33 years.

There is no bullshit in the fact that more people die from accidental gun deaths every year than saving yourself from a criminal.

But you can argue whatever you want, it's people like you that set the world back, because your freedom to make silly decisions is going to cost millions of live over the course of time, and I want you to hold that on your conscience.

Where did you get that?


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 29, 2016, 06:19:25 pm
In the wrong spot. It's 10 since 1997.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 30, 2016, 07:19:34 am
There's only one conclusion on the side of facts. That's the point of them.

And the FACT is that violent crime rates have dropped in EVERY state once concealed carry is allowed and decreases inversely proportionally as the number of permits issued goes up. THOSE are the facts. What you call "facts" are misapplied statistics attempted to prove a politically motivated point. But your bias is so clear you can't even see that.

But regardless of any of that, what really is a FACT is that one's personal protection is an individual right. That's the whole point of the bill of rights: that society, nor studies, nor political action, nor any other preference by the group can make that decision for the individual. It doesn't matter if 99% of the population thinks all guns should be outlawed. They can't dictate to that 1% how they can and can't defend themselves. That is a fundamental right we enjoy in this country. And I wouldn't trade that freedom for anything in the world. I wouldn't expect a Canadian to understand fundamental freedom though. All of your freedom is given to you by the government, which means it can be taken away. My freedom comes from outside the government, and all power in my government was given to it by the people. All other freedoms were reserved by the people. It's sad how many in this world today, even Americans, don't understand this distinction and are so willing to give up their rights and freedoms to a government, not realizing that government can take them at any time. They live in fantasy land thinking that because all is well and it's working right now that it always will be. But one day it will come crashing down, their freedoms will be gone and they won't have a way to get them back. That's why the 2nd amendment exists. It allows for an armed populace to help preserve all the other freedoms of the bill or rights because it is "necessary to the security of a free state."


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 30, 2016, 07:20:20 am
In the wrong spot. It's 10 since 1997.

Actually, it's completely incorrect altogether.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 30, 2016, 01:30:00 pm
You aren't free Ohio. Guns don't make you free. You are dependant on the government for everything.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 30, 2016, 02:21:20 pm
You aren't free Ohio. Guns don't make you free. You are dependant on the government for everything.

Maybe you are.

There's a difference between using the government and being dependent on it.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: dudedudedude for Moderator on September 30, 2016, 03:02:36 pm
Stick it to the man.


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: OhioLawyer on September 30, 2016, 03:26:27 pm
Good one. Did you think of it all by yourself?


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Handass on October 01, 2016, 09:10:21 am
I COME BEARING A RELEVANT IMAGE

(http://i.imgur.com/sgzHG9rl.jpg)

PROCEED


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: New Oomomo on October 03, 2016, 11:07:04 am
wow hamdy... your sig


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Laughing Turd on October 11, 2016, 02:43:34 pm
that last debate was a tragic display. how embarrassing.  >:(


Title: Re: 2016 Election
Post by: Slaught3r on October 30, 2016, 04:16:15 pm
Plan on a dictator taking over in the next 10 years, precipitated by a financial disaster.  Once the world has no more USA to screw, humans will go the way of the dinosaur.  Cheers