Tasty popcorn in /r/politics over gun ownership. Special guest appearance by /u/Warphalange. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
68 ups - 24 downs = 44 votes
292 comments submitted at 07:17:44 on Sep 25, 2013 by reamde
Tasty popcorn in /r/politics over gun ownership. Special guest appearance by /u/Warphalange. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
68 ups - 24 downs = 44 votes
292 comments submitted at 07:17:44 on Sep 25, 2013 by reamde
Aaaah so much rage. Love him or hate him, as soon as you see that name you know it's time to get the popcorn out :D
I need some clarification. Who is u/warphalange?
Edit: Something about faking having cancer...does anyone have a link for that? It sounds very entertaining.
sure thing! Here's the original post that sparked the mass downvoting of everything he posts, which has continued for the last year and a half. He's become Reddits own Sin Eater- sucking up all the negative karma so that everyone else can emerge from threads downvote free :p Have a look at his profile. He says a whole lot of reasonable stuff. Not that it matters though- his own personal downvote brigade follows him everywhere.
Props to him for not deleting the account.
Thanks.
He does have 100,000+ karma, so even if he doesn't get more, it seems pointless to throw away a centurion account.
What's pointless is valuing having 100k points in the first place. His whole point in posting the "fake cancer" thing is that it's ridiculous to think that any of these points actually matter when the quality of the content sucks. I can't say he picked the best vehicle for his message but I agree.
>His whole point in posting the "fake cancer" thing is that it's ridiculous to think that any of these points actually matter when the quality of the content sucks
That's what my redditor grandmother always used to say. At least until she died of cancer exactly one year ago today. Now I have to foster all these problem orphaned kittens since she can't help the shelter anymore.I'm really feeling down down and any karma you could spare helps
Definitely, guns do come up rather a lot, but /u/WarPhalange makes it so much better!
/u/WarPhalange?! Count me in.
He popped up recently on the thread "Liars of askreddit, what is the lie you got the most karma for?"
ITT: More drama
They follow me around. I have around 3-5 gun nuts who post on me in every thread. Zoidberg tracks me (he totally SWEARS he just a subscriber!), etc. Look at the child comments underneath me.
I don't consider your hands clean in this
You love attention, you go to multiple subs on a regular basis spout something about invading/"nuts"/call someone out for something then get surprised when people respond to you. Seems legit. You're just a poor innocent user who didn't start or perpetuate any drama yourself.
It's amazing what happens when one user becomes as fanatic about their opposition to guns as the progun people are about their desire for guns.
Hell, he posts in /r/progun! He's not pro-gun at all. Why else would he post there, if not to stir shit up?
All the while, banning anyone from GrC who isn't anti-gun enough for his standards.
So I did a quick ctrl+f search on your profile.
Did you know as of right now your frothy NRA spamming is accounting for fully 18% of all comments in this thread out of 200? In other words, if we removed you right now we could get rid of 18% or 36 of the comments here and nothing of value would be lost?
Zoidberg has another 31 comments. In other words, between you and zoidberg, you are responsible for nearly half the comments in this thread?
edit:
Zoidberg has nearly doubled his comments here to 58 in the space of a couple hours.
Townsley, you and I have been going back and forth now for quite a while, and with nothing to show for it.
I have a proposition for you.
As of this moment, I am making an honest effort to improve the quality of discourse between pro and anti gun people. The conditions are as follows:
I encourage my fellow pro-gun redditors to not downvote any posts or comments on GrC, and to refrain from making ad hominem arguments or any sort of hostile behavior towards anti-gun people.
In exchange, I ask GrC to cease the "if this redditor snaps" series, to also refrain from ad hominems, and any inappropriate downvoting as well.
Please do not misinterpret this as any sort of change in my pro-gun stance. I'm still an adamant supporter of gun rights, and always will be.
However, I am seeking a change in the attitudes of people on both sides of the debate. The level of hostility is far too high, and has gone on for too long. I acknowledge that I have played a part in this escalation, a part that I regret.
I hope you will consider my offer, and I hope that my fellow progunners, as well as anti gun people, will join me in renouncing such behavior.
This is a entirely sincere offer.
Those are pretty big words for someone to spend 16 hours a day on reddit complaining about guns in four different subs at a minimum. Go get shadow banned again please. But before you do tell your users to stop commenting in threads that are 12 days old for my profile
What percentage of the comments in this thread are made by you or another GrCer?
I simply don't care enough to do the math, but I figured you wouldn't mind, since you appear to have nothing better to do.
Posting pictures from /r/guns (and links to the actual posts!) clearly doesn't occupy all of your time.
I made 18, half of which are an actual conversation with a mod from /r/politics who has not been doing enough to counter votegaming - both pooled and direct linked - by you and others from /r/progun. If he was not here I would have 9.
You are quite the frothy one, zoidberg.
Do you have any proof of my alledged vote gaming? Spoiler: No. Not /r/guns, not any other subreddit. Me. Personally. I doubt it.
You see, that's the trouble with highly specific accusations. Mighty hard to prove.
I'm beginning to grow tired of your baseless accusations. In the real world we call that libel, and it's illegal. I see why you stick to reddit.
Townsley, I do not "track" you. (Can you even do that on this site? If so, it's news to me.)
Quite frankly, you're not worth that much of my time. Unlike yourself, I don't reddit 16 hours a day, or however much time it takes you to run your subreddit and post all those links in the comments. Not to mention all the time it must take to keep track of everyone that posts in pro gun subreddits. Just look at the list you sent me! Creepy.
And yes, I am a subscriber to SRD. I have been since the sub was a month old. Sorry if that's upsetting to hear.
And before you accuse me of anything (again) you replied to the top comment, making this comment very visible. No stalking required.
"Tracking" is easy to do, and I doubt that's news to you. There are sites dedicated to tracking things including users on reddit (metareddit is one). But there is also the so-called "friends" feature.
No, it is indeed news to me.
I'll refrain from asking why you're familiar with "metareddit", however.
And the the only people I'm friends with are people I know personally, who certainly aren't members of hateful subreddits, GrC included. I wouldn't be friends with them if they were.
I am familiar with metareddit because you can track people mentioning your own name, which I used after receiving death threats. There are also partial doxxes on me and my husband.
I'm talking about the friend feature of reddit. It could be used to stalk someone very easily. Personally I think they should get rid of it.
Death threats? From who?
I'd be more than happy to PM them and tell them to knock that bullshit off. Assholes like that give the rest of us a bad name.
It was in January, maybe February. I'm not worried about it but you understand why I might keep track of mentions of this username and my old ones right? Metareddit is good for that.
Where pro-gun and anti-gun people meet, there will be drama.
It is one of the great absolute truths of the universe. And so it goes.
Yeah there's just no compromise on a topic like that where one side is totally logical and the other is completely blinded by propaganda =/
I'm really hoping you left this ambiguous on purpose because it's perfect.
My thoughts: "I don't know if I agree with this comment or not... fuck it, it's funny."
When it comes to the gun debate, both sides are equally guilty of being assholes.
I'm perfectly willing to admit that I've been an asshole. I won't even try to claim otherwise.
But this thread in particular has made me realize how stupid this has gotten. Starting now, I'm trying to drop the ad hominems that are so often present in gun-related arguments. There has been very little intelligent discourse on the subject in the last 9 months or so, and I'm trying to change that.
I invite anyone, either pro-gun, anti-gun, or anywhere in between to hold themselves to a higher standard.
...Frankly, pro and anti-gun people both are starting to get a reputation on this site as a big fistful of assholes. I'd like to try to get us down in the "thimbleful of assholes" catagory. Which is a silly name for a catagory, as you can really only fit one in there. But hey, I'm not the guy that came up with the names so don't look at me.
I've started to distance myself from the pro-gun crowd a lot recently. Both sides have stated that there needs to be a rational argument about guns in the US, but both sides have not done anything to make the argument rational.
Don't get me wrong, I do have guns and a carry permit, but I usually do my best to keep my views on the subject to myself. The pro-gunners have become their own worst enemy.
As for you being an asshole, your comments aren't bad. You show a lot of knowledge on the subject. And as for getting in people's faces, it happens. Everyone on Reddit is guilty of it (Myself included). The best thing you can do is actually acknowledge it, do what you can to keep it from happening again, and move on.
Yeah, I just realized that I spent much of my day going back and forth with GrC people and getting nowhere. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy arguing as much as the next guy, but it just gets so... tiresome after a while. And when you're like me, and have been seeing the same shit over and over for the last 9 months, it just gets old.
I had to put my dog down recently, so I've been in a shitty mood, and I've been taking it out on reddit. It's not helping...
I'm going to play GTAV now.
...Don't worry, Townsley. I won't be shooting real people.
To be fair, certain "Redditors" seem to love stirring up arguments.
As for your doggie, I'm sorry to hear that.
As for GTAV, I'm jealous because I have yet to get it.
He was old. It was his time. Still hurts, but it was his time.
And GTAV is funfunfun. I recommend it. Rockstar has really outdone themselves. The world is huge, both size-wise and depth-wise.
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
>if i blow up a marathon, i am blamed
Uhh, I'm pretty sure that making bombs is illegal. And the whole analogy is stupid anyway. People blame mass shooters for shootings, but they also blame guns for making it easier for mass shooters to, uh, shoot things.
> Uhh, I'm pretty sure that making bombs is illegal.
Shhhh! We love guns, not bombs :p
So the reason you see so many upvotes for asinine NRA talking points in that thread is that it was directly linked to and brigaded by /r/progun. That post slipped through their picket line of the new queue there, making it the first one to get by them in months.
Interesting fact? THE DAILY SHOW WAS CITING TO THE /r/GUNSARECOOL MASS SHOOTING TRACKER, HE WAS ACTUALLY CITING TO REDDIT.
Am I excited about that? A little.
\^_^
Honest question, please answer:
What proof do you have that the /r/politics thread in question was brigaded by /r/progun?
Please note that many /r/progun subscribers are also subscribed to /r/politics (including myself), so their presence there is not entirely unusual.
Also bear in mind that (last I checked) /r/progun is roughly the same size as your subreddit, GrC. You claim that GrC cannot brigade due to its small size, yet make the opposite claim about progun?
I look forward to your response.
Edit: Revised my question to make it more clear.
Well they are no longer the same size, one is around 10 000 subs and the other is around 4 500. Still, either is more than enough to brigade with (not saying either is, just an observation).
Fair enough, and I agree.
Almost any sub can brigade with the proper dedication and organization.
What troubles me is that the standard line from GrC is "one of the gun subreddits was brigading". And when asked for proof, the standard response is "a bunch of frequent posters in gun subreddits are in this thread".
How do they keep tabs on all the people that post in gun subreddits? I seriously doubt there's much crossover between GrC and pro gun subscribers. For a sub that claims to be constantly stalked, it stands to reason they do some stalking of their own. They didn't link to over 900 posts in r/guns without ever going there, that's for sure.
My main point is this:
Not once have I ever seen hard evidence that /r/guns, /r/progun, or any of the large gun subreddits have brigaded on any significant scale.
A half dozen /r/guns subscribers commenting in a thread in a major subreddit like /r/politics is not evidence of a brigade, no matter how many times that claim is made.
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
What do you mean by that?
>A half dozen /r/guns subscribers commenting in a thread in a major subreddit like /r/politics is not evidence of a brigade
There's the problem. You have to admit it's at least a little bit suspicious.
Why? In a sub of 10k, a half dozen post in one of the biggest subreddits on the site?
Doesn't seem at all suspicious to me. If we weren't talking about gun subreddits, no one would give it a second thought. Townsley has just screamed "brigade" over and over until everyone assumes it much be true.
If just one person from here posts in a drama thread and the related comments, people will be up in arms. You have to understand that there is enough of a link there to raise suspicion.
Suspicion, maybe. But that isn't proof of anything. The only reason there's suspicion is because of the gospel according to Townsley.
No other subreddits come under that level of scrutiny, and it's because of his baseless accusations and complaints of persecution.
I think this is a pretty clear cut case of causation vs correlation.
People who are interesting in gun issues are subscribed to /r/guns. People who are interested in gun issues will be much more likely to click through to the comments of a gun related post on a different sub and participate.
It's just like whenever you see a post about feminism on a default. You know there are going to be a bunch of SRSers in that thread, but it's not necessarily because it was linked to by SRS. It's just the intersection of people with the same interests on different parts of the same website.
In this instance in particular, since Townsely made the direct claim
>it was directly linked to and brigaded by /r/progun
but couldn't provide a single example of this direct link it's pretty safe to say he's talking out his ass. Again.
Um, the direct link which was reported both to the admins and to the mods of /r/politics. It was a standing, open, and 13 hour long direct brigade at the time I found the brigade link.
http://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/1ms0i7/rprogunhasahuge13hourlongdirectvote/
/r/progun users are the most hardcore gun nuts that can be found on the internet. What they lack in education and class they make up for in hurr durr enthusiasm from their redneck base, as you well understand. It's called the "enthusiasm gap" in gun politics, the two sides are no where near equivalent. /r/gunsarecool is mocking gun owners and throwing spitballs, you don't see vein popping religious fervor from the folks at GrC - nobody is getting tazed at gun violence rallies.
http://i.minus.com/i7xw5MaEbxeeK.gif
Zoidberg, I'm still waiting for you to make a point that you haven't gotten second hand from the NRA website.
So you proof is that you think gun owners are politically overzealous.
We care too much, I guess. That's our problem.
We need to be as apathetic as a subreddit founded for the sole purpose of mocking a single group of people.
They have much to teach us!
You have nothing to fear because these are responsible satirists. People are going to be satirized no matter what and it's only fair we have satire to defend ourselves, or only the criminals will be able to make fun of people. This country was founded on the right for us to be able to speak our minds and mock whomever we feel deserves it.
I do not take issue with being insulted. Anti-gun people are not the only ones guilty of such behavior.
My issue is that anyone that posts in a pro-gun subreddit is accused of taking part in some sort of brigading, and these accusations are made with little to no actual proof.
Call me what you will, but at least have the decency and ability to back it up. That's not unreasonable.
I don't know if it's organized or not, but it's pretty clear looking at the history of /r/gunsarecool that they have an inordinate number of downvotes. And every time the gun discussion comes up on mainstream reddit, which I'll admit I participate in sometimes, it is wildly unpopular with the progun groups and the voting reflects that.
I've yet to see a pro gun post in a non-gun subreddit go above +2 or so, so I'm not sure how popular it is.
You've got to be kidding. Look at the posts here or here.
Hey, slightly off topic question for you. I've never owned or used a gun before, but I've been wanting to get into going to the shooting range as a potential hobby. I need to get licensed and trained yes? Where would I go to start this process? I really have no idea where to start.
What state/country do you live in? It makes a difference, which is why I ask.
I live in New Mexico, in the U.S.
Well I'd recommend making a post in either /r/progun or /r/firearms and ask for more advice, as I'm not from NM. /r/guns is a larger sub, but it isn't as geared towards new shooters. Someone in one of the other subs would probably be willing to take you shooting, provided you can find someone in your area.
I'm happy to answer any questions I can, but send me them through private messages, as we appear to be attracting downvotes for doing it here.
In all seriousness, anyone can go into a range and start blasting away, no training required. It's how we ensure that only the best can do it. I may have gotten a little less serious with that last sentence.
As much as I appreciate your insults, the link you provided me is not to the same /r/politics thread.
You have no proof that the thread featured in this SRD post was brigaded.
And I don't recall seeing anything about reddit on the NRA website, so I'm afraid I don't get your meaning.
But what do I know, I'm just a... what was it? "hurr durr uneducated redneck something something?" I must be the first redneck to have a degree from a four year university.
Yes I can. There is a standing, pooled, votegaming of /r/politics by a group of fanatical gun nuts. These users are all known for picketing the new queue there and downvoting any gun related story to prevent them from reaching the front page, in every thread, bar none.
Meanwhile, there were three GrCers in there because we were proud of being mentioned on the Daily Show. Yet 90% (at least 15 by my count) of the commenters in there were from /r/progun.
Here are some of them with choice quotes of the stupid things they said in that thread:
http://np.reddit.com/user/zoidberg1339
From /r/progun
>Keep him talking. He can't be far from a heart attack. So much rage.
http://np.reddit.com/user/Frostiken
From /r/progun
>But the only purpose of guns is to kill people. The purpose of alcohol is to... help amputate limbs in the civil war! Yeah!
He didn't call anyone faggot though, which is good.
http://np.reddit.com/user/TGBambino
From /r/progun
>My rights trump your irrational fears.
http://np.reddit.com/user/mike1222
>Some people need to be killed. Gun grabbers, for instance.
http://np.reddit.com/user/rtowey
From /r/progun
>If they do try to enact gun control, they should be executed for treason and disobeying the second amendment!
http://np.reddit.com/user/fordhook2000
(Spamming multiple Faux news type blog spam posts from the NRA bubble)
http://np.reddit.com/user/jeffj95
/r/progun gun owner
http://np.reddit.com/user/ImChrisHansenn
Wall ot text conpiratard gun lover who believes thinks there is a Bilderberg (Jew) conspiracy
http://np.reddit.com/user/RowdyPants
Hardcore /r/progun owner
http://np.reddit.com/user/untried_captain
From /r/progun
http://np.reddit.com/user/rtowey
Gun owner, hard core /r/progun spammer
http://np.reddit.com/user/kweer
(Supported the killing of Trayvon Martin, assault rifles)
http://np.reddit.com/user/TitusUMMS
From /r/progun
http://np.reddit.com/user/kamikazi08
Hardcore /r/progun spammer
http://np.reddit.com/user/welfaretrain
Hardcore gun owner
You've failed to meet my challenge yet again.
A pattern of behavior is not proof. Personal insults are not proof either. Allow me to explain:
Let's say there's a murder. You claim: The killer drove a red car!
I ask: Why do you think that?
You respond: This other murder was committed by a man driving a red car! Red car drivers murder at an above-average rate!
Those two claims may be true, but they do not prove the initial claim.
Furthermore, as impressive (and disturbing) as I find your collection of... dossiers of /r/progun posters, it does not prove your brigading claim.
And some of the more distasteful comments made by some of those individuals are not proof either. /r/progun is periodically commented in by users that appear to be making the most inflammatory comments possible, perhaps in a deliberate attempt to make the subreddit look bad. I have no way of obtaining solid proof of this, so I will refrain from making any accusatory remarks. You could learn from my example.
But as I mentioned in my initial comment, many /r/progun subscribers (myself included) also subscribe to /r/politics so their presence there is not unusual, nor proof of an organized brigade. After all, it was a default sub until quite recently.
We appear to have different definitions of what constitutes a brigade. Just because individuals, who subscribe to a subreddit you detest, also happen to subscribe to, comment, and vote in one of the most popular subreddits on the site, that does not mean there is an organized brigade.
I will thank you to stop making such broad, unfounded accusations about myself and my fellow gun owning redditors.
fyi a link in subreddit1 to a post in subreddit2 which then experiences a significant amount of posters/votes up or down from subreddit1 is brigading. I know almost all of the time the mods and majority of the community members are against it but it happens with any sub that engages in meta activity. SRD has it happen too most of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/E7B0nb1.jpg
I'm not claiming that it's anything particularly special. But if Townsley is going to insist on calling me an uneducated redneck, damnnit, I'm going to correct him. I have every right to do so.
Everything you say is so adorable.
As opposed to being brigaded by your sub?
GRC doesn't post direct links to comments, just screenshots. Commenters there are specifically told the GRC equivalent of "don't piss in the popcorn" via the rules link in the sidebar.
/r progun does none of those things, and directly links to posts in a transparent attempt to get the gun nuts to vote brigade. You can't really compare the two. Well, obviously you can, just not even remotely accurately. Assuming you care about being accurate.
That is untrue.
GrC links to /r/guns posts in their "if this redditor snaps" series, which is over 900 posts.
The link is contained in the comments, not the post itself, but this is linking all the same.
When Townsley posts a "snaps" he includes a link but hits the remove button. I have an RSS feed on our modlog and spamqueue so I see it every time. Anyway, 24 hours later he will then approve the comment that contains the link.
If there's any brigading it should be obvious once the original post is 24 hours old.
Townsley stole some pics off one of my SO's posts the same day he made a post. uploaded them from his Google+ to imgur and didn't once link or give credit to his pictures. That's shady IMO.
You can't steal something from the internet. You may not like it but there's nothing wrong with what Townsley does.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigitalMillenniumCopyright_Act
I'm kind of familiar with it.
Which goes completely out the window once the creator publicly posts his content on a "news and image sharing" website.
If you don't want your image shared, then don't post it on a public image sharing site.
[deleted]
At one time there was nothing wrong with owning a black person as long as your state laws allowed it. If somehow space time got all twisty and you met a slave owner on the street what would you think of him?
Nobody is being treated like a criminal. He suggests they're potential criminals, but guess what? We all are. But not everyone has an arsenal at our disposal if we snap.
I've said it before that I'm not too fond of "If this redditor snaps..." but I think you are making a bigger deal of it than it is.
You just equated slavery with rifle ownership. I can't even believe it.
I legitimately don't even know how to respond to that sort of comparison. If that's how you see gun owners, there's just no reasoning with you.
And anti-gun people say that we're the ones that can't compromise. I give up.
We generally don't link to gun subs. If we did link then we would be accused of brigading. If you point me to the submission, I likely already have the link in there and can publish it if you would like.
I think I recall those pics - they were pictures of a gun hoarder who died and his death legacy is proliferating 50+ guns onto the secondary market with only a onetime background check, right?
It's funny to me how gun owners think their moral and ethical responsibility ends with compliance with watered down NRA gun law. Complying with the barebones law does not mean you are morally in the clear for owning so many guns that they are mass dumped onto the secondary market with no care for their impact on American society.
I think you should remove those pictures. They don't belong to you and you weren't given permission to use them.
Call it a gesture of good faith. Show gun-nuts how you're much more mature.
I asked him to remove my pictures several times. He just replied with some copy/paste boiler plate on how he can basically do anything he wants with anything he finds on the internet, and that copyright doesn't apply to me because my photo's aren't good.
He obviously only hears what he wants to hear. No amount of talking to him will convince him otherwise.
I think gun hoarders are the absolute worst. If you are a gun hoarder, two things happen: you get old and are forced to sell your guns, or you die and sell your guns. There is no in between, families keep one or two and cash out the rest for money. No one wants 50 fucking guns except for the nuts.
And that is a fundamental problem with arms trafficking in the country, kids in the ghetto getting cheap guns bought second hand without background checks thanks to NRA law. So the use of those pictures, like all others, is fair use comment and criticism under US copyright law, the reddit TOS, and common sense:
http://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/wiki/copyright
Legally selling firearms is "trafficking" now?
What do you want those people to do? If they keep the guns, they're "gun nuts", if they sell them, they're "trafficking".
Do you honestly expect them to turn thousands and thousands of dollars worth of legally owned property in to the police for pennies on the dollar?
You expect people to take the fiscally nonsensical route with their inheritance because someone on the internet will call them names if they don't.
You are a bully, Townsley. Your zeal just prevents you from seeing it. You're like Malcolm X in his "I hate all white people, even if they support total racial equality" stage.
I'm sure you'll laugh at the comparison and share it with your friends, but it's not entirely inaccurate.
Your utter lack of respect and human decency is mildly impressive. You obviously don't understand the situation. You asked no questions on the situation, you just jumped to a conclusion that supported your world view.
Had you bothered to ask you would have gotten the entire story. My siblings and I will be keeping some of the guns pictured for personal use. Hunting, target and skeet shooting. The remainder of the guns will be listed via a licensed broker. Every single gun sold will be done so in accordance with state laws.
The other funny thing about your ignorance of the subject is that you claim my deceased father's guns are going to end up in a gang banger's hands and proliferate gun violence. Almost all of the guns I got from my father are .22 caliber rifles. They are barely more powerful than a BB gun. They are good for hunting squirrels and zombie targets. I don't know the statistics, but I can't imagine guns of this caliber being used in a drive by or robbery, since anything thicker than a sheet of drywall will stop bullets from these guns.
Show me where you gave credit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/1mt7he?sort=confidence
And he asked you to at least give him credit for his pictures where you spouted off a bunch of bullshit replies.
Edit: one hour in and no link...
Four day old link. Approved at your request.
So tell me why when he asked it of you that you spouted off a bunch of bullshit and didn't link like he originally asked?
Yes, I've heard that before.
Still, the claim is made that GrC doesn't link to /r/guns posts. That is untrue. Waiting 24 hours does not make a difference in that regard.
I still hear GrCers claim that progun subreddits link to GrC, but with no proof given. In many gun subreddits linking to GrC is grounds for the comment being removed.
You openly admit to linking, pro gun subs remove any linked comments. And it's the pro gun subreddits that are accused of brigading. It's absurd.
The truth can often be absurd Zoidberg.
[deleted]
Excellent. I take that as you telling me you're going to try and stop the brigades coming from you and your cohorts. I look forward to the day reddit is cleansed of the foul stench emanating from the gun nut subreddits.
[deleted]
That claim is made but with that exception. Nobody's ever tried to hide it.
So openly admitting to behavior that makes brigading easier is okay, yet gun subs are accused of constantly brigading with no proof.
There is a pretty obvious double standard at work here, and I'm getting pretty tired of it.
What behavior? He posts the links 24 hours later. If you can find votes changing after he approves the link, then let us know.
Why make the links at all?
>GRC doesn't post direct links to comments, just screenshots.
Hey Cletus, quit being an ignorant idiot.
There are two damn direct links in that thread.
You again, have no clue what you are talking about.
Edit: For posterity.
When I reported you and the rest of /r/progun for votegaming that thread, I sent them to that link, by the way.
How was I votegaming that thread? Whatchu talkin' 'bout?
I also reported you, and so did some /r/politics mods. Looks like the admins just don't care anymore.
Here's what happened: I posted my modmail to /r/politics in GrC. I then linked the admins to that. Then, I linked the admins to the /r/politics modmail.
Everytime I report votegaming to /r/politics, I report the permalink to the admins for that modmail message to the admins as well. /r/politics has extremely poor moderation right now, with /u/theredditpope being one of the laziest mods on the planet. I have been trying to get him to handle the /r/progun votegaming for a while now.
For the record, he did absolutely nothing with the report as far as I can tell. That laziness helps to reinforce and protect the /r/progun brigade by doing nothing, but he also took the embarrassing step of reporting my mere report of the brigade to the admins.
So he was trying to get me in trouble with the admins for making him do his job, not knowing I had already reported his subreddit's failure to do anything to the admins. It was an embarrassing moment, because he also said he was too big a poweruser to care about stopping the brigading, and that since I was from a smaller subreddit he didn't care.
I'm sure the admins appreciated that.
I still don't know how you are accusing me of votegaming. I've never posted a link to another sub in /r/progun, or /r/guns.
Anyways, in that specific thread, I was posting in it before that post in /r/progun was made, and didn't even find out about that the /r/progun post until you posted about it. But, since the post you made directly linking my comments, your sub completely flipped a 13 hour old comment from 3/0 to 6/6, and the 20 hour old post that was at 9 downvotes for 11 hours before you made your post, it went to 25 down, an almost 16 point swing. I made hourly screen shots of it, and also forwarded them to the admins.
It's hilarious that you cry victim, when the bully is you. You bitch at me for "votegaming" /r/politics, when I've never posted a link to any comment, or thread in there, but you do.
Hell, /r/politics is my second most popular sub to post in.
guns 1034 27444
politics 832 4723
progun 3716 4580
But yes, in your eyes, me not posting links, and interacting with this website like I have for the past almost 5 years, is completely wrong, when what you are doing is correct. Fuck man, we might not agree on shit, but don't be dumb, naive, and facetious about it.
That's a hell of a story. If only it were half true it would be so much less sensationalized. If you want to call me lazy then that's fine. Say what you want. I'm willing to work with you on the gun vote gaming thing but not if all you even do is accuse particular mods (not me) of being big gun shills. You act like you can snap your fingers and the problem will be solved. It can't. This is a difficult issue and it's only made worse when someone tries to start a bunch of witch hunts while we are trying to do our work.
Oh c'mon, we have been trying to get the mods of /r/politics to regulate /r/progun vote manipulation in /r/politics for a year. Your efforts to regulate it, to label it, or to acknowledge it have failed up until this point.
In fact, what kind of mod reports a user for reporting votegaming? That's the "circle the wagons" mentality that has protected the votegaming for a year. You demonize me for pointing out /u/luster has been participating in it? Fine! I won't mention luster's participation in it! Just do something about it.
And yeah, I don't think it reflects well that you reported me to the admins for trying to get you to do your job, and in the process call users who aren't high and mighty mods of /r/politics "small bit users". The only one acting megalomaniacal in there is you, as you insult users who are trying to improve your community.
Here is the exchange in full:
http://i.imgur.com/xPvzxMq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/iaQ0BRP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/syHR2pf.jpg
And yeah, I'm glad I embarrassed you in front of the admins - who were already there in modmail - after you tried to be petty and reported me to them. Now don't get me wrong, I'm happy that in that exchange, for the first time in a year, you are admitting that there is votegaming going on in /r/politics.
Let me throw down a mod challenge to you: I dare you to make mild anti-gun violence statements in the /r/politics/new queue once a day for two weeks on an alt. After only two days it should become immediately apparent to you who is forming the picket line there. I'm not asking you to solve reddit's structural deficiencies yourself!
I'm asking you to take that first step and experiment for yourself so that you get a sense of the scope of the problem. Just one thread a day, once a day, hell you can do it for just one week.
After that, I promise you will have a fire lit under your ass to do something about it.
You are so completely full of shit the last thing I'm interested in doing is helping you. You can lie to SRD all you want but I'm done with you.
Do you not know how the np.reddit thing works?
I'm just kidding, it's pretty obvious that you don't know how anything works, anywhere. I do think it's adorable the way you're following me around to try to be wrong in as many different settings as possible, like some sort of awful Guinness record for stupidity that you're trying to break. Maybe later we can watch you be wrong about something in /r space or /r skyrim! See you there!
Ho Ho, a direct link to a /r/progun post on GrC! And not even an np one at that!
But I thought they swore they didn't do that?
The admins were given that link
http://np.reddit.com/r/GunsAreCool/comments/1ms0i7/rprogunhasahuge13hourlongdirectvote/
to GrC as soon as I posted it.
By me.
Two of em. Both which received stagnant for several house, then received considerable downvotes after he posted it.
You're both extremists just on other ends of the spectrum. I imagine your sub rules work just as well as anti pissing rules here on SRD or any other meta sub. As in your users are regularly pissing all over everything according to their bias.
>You're both extremists just on other ends of the spectrum
Oh good, I was briefly worried we might make it all the way through a 5 minute conversation on reddit without some dink trotting out a hilariously lazy false equivalence. Close one!
>I imagine your sub rules work just as well as anti pissing rules here on SRD or any other meta sub.
They actually work pretty well, and popcorn pissers are routinely shown the door. You should try having some rules at some point, they work wonders. Kind of telling that you don't expect most of your posters to have the mental capacity or discipline to follow simple instructions, though. Sure am glad you guys stockpile guns!
> Oh good, I was briefly worried we might make it all the way through a 5 minute conversation on reddit without some dink trotting out a hilariously lazy false equivalence. Close one!
It's not a false equivalence. Most people are in the middle of your stance and the progun sub. Your stances are extreme to the definition. I'm sorry if this displeases you although I'm sure in your maniac state you have some vague understanding of the concept of averages and extremes from them.
>They actually work pretty well, and popcorn pissers are routinely shown the door. You should try having some rules at some point, they work wonders. Kind of telling that you don't expect most of your posters to have the mental capacity or discipline to follow simple instructions, though. Sure am glad you guys stockpile guns!
I'm not a member of the sub brigading you, though I do stockpile/trade/help friends obtain guns on a regular basis and they have been a part of my life since my childhood. There are more guns than people in this country most likely and I'm just fine with that. I don't personally care about your crusade because I know most of your desires will not come to fruition in the next couple generations with the way this countries demographics and legal system sits as it does now.
Being in line with mainstream views shared by the vast majority of people in the rest of the developed world is 'extremist'?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The majority of people either don't care or want laws less strict in the US. Not only that but some people in Colorado were just recalled for trying to change gun laws. I'm not concerned (and neither is this context this is US politics/gun control not the rest of the world) with "the rest of the world" and their view on something. We have a law stating owning a weapon is for better or worse a protected right outside certain restrictions here.
American exceptionalism is so 20th century. There's no doubt of the effectiveness of NRA propaganda preying on the fears of the ever shrinking middle-class white suburban male demographic though, I'll give you that.
Ahhh because the anti-america jerk is so much better than the culture of a country founded with the legal basis for owning firearms? I've never heard of the NRA outside someone like you complaining about them aside from a random membership reference from a girlfriend's dad. If you're seriously stating the culture of this country and it's love of guns boils down to the NRA and not that the NRA is a product of it you have little experience with this country.
Outside of the gun control argument every time I talk to someone like you (anti america jerker) I think of this image:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/rl5045a4f9.jpg
Actually I love the US and would just like it to become a country where children are massacred a little less often. Being anti-exceptionalist has nothing to do with being anti-American, it's more like being anti-primitive tribalist. I'm also a constitutional originalist in line with Justices Scalia and Thomas when it comes to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment--I see nothing wrong with the Constitution guaranteeing the rights of adult white males to own muzzle-loading black powder muskets circa 18th century technology.
And your ignorance of the gun manufacturer's lobbying and propaganda efforts are nothing to boast about.
> where children are massacred a little less often
While I agree with you I think this line of reasoning is never worth bringing up. How about "where I'm less likely to be shot because I'm standing near someone that someone else is pissed at"?
> where children are massacred a little less often.
Nice fear mongering. And yet I don't see you here crying about cars, alcohol, pools (more children randomly drown than are shot), etc. This is typical "what about the children" fear mongering. You sound like a sappy morning TV show.
>Being anti-exceptionalist has nothing to do with being anti-American, it's more like being anti-primitive tribalist. I'm also a constitutional originalist in line with Justices Scalia and Thomas when it comes to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment--I see nothing wrong with the Constitution guaranteeing the rights of adult white males to own muzzle-loading black powder muskets circa 18th century technology.
You're part of the typical young and often European centered "anti american jerk" that is ever so popular on internet forums. Your sarcastic interpretations of our laws will not happen.
>And your ignorance of the gun manufacturer's lobbying and propaganda efforts are nothing to boast about.
This country has a love of guns that made them, they didn't make us. You're ignorant, please stay in whatever country you're from and keep your thoughts online where they can do as little impact as possible. Thank you for your time.
It's like he thinks if he repeats something enough times it becomes true.
one shotgun is "heavily armed"?
According to GrC, yes. According to everyone else, no.
I would consider anyone carrying a gun to be pretty heavily armed, considering that the median person walking around the street has zero deadly weapons of any kind.
Then what qualifies as lightly armed?
Mace, pepper spray, taser . . . basically weapons that aren't able to inflict lethal injuries on large numbers of people.
So what would you consider a 5 shot .38 revolver? It's hardly a mass shooting weapon.
A weapon able to kill 5 people in seconds with minimal effort? That's pretty serious armament for a regular person to just carry around. I might be a little naive here, but I figure that most people find no need to carry around anything even as a lethal as a knife, so any kind of firearm qualifies as heavily armed.
Have you ever shot a gun before? I'm almost certain you haven't. Why am I so sure?
Because killing 5 people with 5 shots (and no more) from a .38 revolver in a few seconds is quite difficult, even for professional soldiers. They would hardly say it requires "minimal effort". For your average non-special forces badass type, it's all but impossible, even given stationary targets and a longer amount of time, neither of which would be present in a real-world situation.
A weapon of that sort is only good for defending yourself against a single attacker, or two at most.
To be honest, this country would've been better off without the second amendment. Its only use now is for morons to scream "MUH RITES!!!1" and making guns something to be glorified and shown off at the Sunday BBQ.
And stop comparing guns to cars, a toddler can see the stupidity in that.
>And stop comparing guns to cars, a toddler can see the stupidity in that.
...which is why most of the gun nut crowd continues thinking it's a brilliant point to make. They seem to love comparing weapons to everything else on earth except other weapons.
They love to argue semantics, too. For an example: see the "what is heavily armed?" guy above.
I just love how people cling to the "fact" that they need guns to stop the evil government taking over. Bitch, the U.S. military has fucking jet planes, tanks, and nuclear bombs. It isn't the 18th century anymore, you can't just have Farmer John and his 8 sons all pick up their muskets to fight off the redcoats.
Don't get me wrong, I think there is room for limited, regulated gun ownership in the U.S., but the amount of people that think that Obama is seconds away from ordering a military takeover of the U.S. and that the only thing stopping him is their obsession with owning small firearms is beyond absurd.
No kidding. The parity of arms window closed over a century ago. Hell, during the Civil War the people trying to fight that thar evil gub'mint had roughly the exact same weapons as the government if not better (the Confederates had the first submarines, for instance, not that they were particularly successful) and exponentially greater numbers than any Glorious Teahadist Revolution could ever hope to claim and they were STILL beaten. I have no idea why Cletus and Bubba down at the range think their basement collection of Wal-mart AR-15s is going to overthrow the largest military superpower on the planet, but I'd guess it probably has something to do with a lack of branches on their family tree.
The only thing that WOULD stop a hypothetical U.S. president-turned dictator is a respect for the separation of powers and limits of the presidential office on the part of American soldiers. And I don't think that that's something we really need to worry about, at least not at the present. To put it bluntly, we are not remotely in danger of Obama or his successor making themselves Grand Poobah of the U.S.A.
The whole "we need more good guys with guns" think is a little nutty to me too.
I like guns, but if you really feel that you have to carry a gun with you to the grocery store "just in case" then either 1) you are batshit crazy or 2) you are saying that there really is problem with gun violence.
The scariest thing is the ease and obvious thought that they've put into debating this point. Especially when they compare it to a war that we fought 40+ years ago.
That's why we need a Supreme Court ruling allowing for the private ownership of nukes. It's the only way to ensure our freedom as the framers imagined it.
Oh not this shit again.
Two hours after my post? Man, the gun fetishists are really slipping today.
I've lived in NYC my entire life, and I've never felt threatened to the point I wish I had a weapon on me.
Honestly I'd be much more worried if carrying weapons were legal here. There's no way I feel comfortable being in a packed subway car with people who are carrying. There are some serious whackjobs who ride these trains
Well aren't you a special snowflake. "It doesn't bother me so why should it bother anyone else?!" Anecdotal, self-centered, and delusional. I'm actually glad you don't own a gun.
Yes, because the notion that "having everyone carry a weapon in a subway car with 100 people in it is dangerous" is ridiculous, conceited and a stupid opinion to have.
how could I.
(PS I do own a gun, I just don't bring outside. There's no law that says we can't have a personal defense weapon in our houses.)
Then you may want to think about moving somewhere else because you've probably been on hundreds if not thousands of bus rides with someone legally carrying firearms and have never known it.
And these are people who have had to go out of their way to obtain a license to carry, and are trusted by an authority.
Kinda different from Billy Bob carrying a weapon with no actual training and doing it purely for MUH RITES
Oh god. The MUH RITES folks. I can't stand those snobby second year college students who take one law or political theory class and then walk around their suburban neighborhood with a rifle slung over their shoulder just hoping that some officer stops by to check up on them so they can film themselves defending the 2^nd Amendment or something like that for other YouTube Defenders of Justice to jizz over.
The same thing could be said about most people who whine about their rights. Is it a shock that most people who cry about their fourth amendment rights are pedophiles?
Yeah I'm pretty sure that you're full of shit.
What a shitty country.
I've been an avid gun user since my early childhood when my step father and grandpa would take me shooting. I've even served in the US army overseas and I've never killed something with a gun. I own a couple still and rotate out every few years and have a side arm I absolutely love. I don't get people that just assume all guns are just for killing. I've spent more family/friend time at the range than I have in many other activities. The hyperbole and fear mongering is getting old. I'm more likely to die from many more important issues in the US than a gun.
Edit: I love how close Warphalange is to admitting other uses for guns such as entertainment too, check out this slip:
>The difference is a gun serves a purpose besides killing people. A gun does not.
http://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1mm3ag/wevehadsomanymassshootingsintheus_weve/ccba9e3
There are times and places to have a gun on your. A firing range is one if them. Inside your house when you think someone is robbing is another.
Going for a walk down to the grocery store is not one of them, nor is on your way to work. Guns become even more unsettling when the location becomes more crowded.
I don't get the "inside the house" part. Why does someone who is there to steal my telly deserve the death penalty?
>Going for a walk down to the grocery store is not one of them, nor is on your way to work. Guns become even more unsettling when the location becomes more crowded.
So you're saying the millions of people legally carrying firearms on a everyday basis (most you never know about) have nothing but the normal day on their mind are wrong? I'm really glad reddit's ignorant hive mind opinion doesn't reflect actual demographics and people like you are left to pseudo intellectual stances on the Internet that wont ever go anywhere meaningful.
No, I'm saying its unnecessary. Millions of people go on with their day without carrying. These people also don't have a tool that can potentially harm bystanders, and they are just as safe as people who carry
Maybe not "just as safe"
>“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
It is unnecessary in the same way that wearing your seatbelt is unnecessary. Millions of people get to their destination safely without seatbelts, but they are not necessarily "just as safe" as people who wear their seatbelts.
Edit: also most people do interact with tools which can potentially harm innocent bystanders in their daily life, such as cars, knives, etc. Carrying a gun doesn't necessarily make a person any more likely to harm innocent bystanders. In fact, studies consistently show that concealed carry permit holders are much less likely than the population average to commit murder or manslaughter.
>States that keep statistics on crimes committed by concealed handgun license holders invariably find that licensees are significantly less likely than unlicensed residents to commit violent crimes. In Texas, for example, the rate of concealed carry is about 1.8% (as of December 31, 2010). Approximately one Texan out of every 55 is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Yet, according to official statistics, Texas concealed handgun license holders are five and a half times less likely than members of Texas’s general population to commit manslaughter and four times less likely to commit murder. Despite Texas’s high rate of concealed carry, a person in Texas is more than 20 times as likely to be struck by lightning as to be murdered or negligently killed by a concealed handgun license holder. (Texas Department of Public Safety, five-year average of statistics on criminal convictions of CHL holders, 2002-2006; U.S. Census Bureau, yearly estimates of Texas Population, 2002-2006; U.S. National Weather Service, “Medical Aspects of Lightning,” Dr. Marry Ann Cooper)
http://www.campuscarry.com/supporting-facts-arguments/
Millions and millions of people legally carry every day, for their entire lives, without incident.
Until they get mugged, raped, kidnapped, or assaulted. Which by the way some of the above are just as likely to you or more than being killed in a gun homicide/gun rampage.
Spoken like someone who has never been robbed, raped, or done anything at gun point. Good luck unholstering your weapon and firing it when the perpetrator already had one pointed straight to your dome, kiddo.
also your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.
Not every crime is done with a gun child, and even if they are there usually is time to react or struggle if needed. Your ignorance, figure it out.
All of those things occur to people who are unaware (attack from behind or while you looking down at your phone for example) or by a group of people (2-3ish). In both of those situations a gun doesn't help you.
I know people have this illusion they are action movie stars and can react in a quarter of a second to deflect a blow, whip out a gun, and fire a shot into the crook's crotch, but in reality that just doesn't happen.
oh and by the way, if the victim has a weapon, you sure as hell better bet the crook(s) have a weapon, which means it very likely will turn into random shots being fired and an innocent bystander being hit.
> All of those things occur to people who are unaware (attack from behind or while you looking down at your phone for example) or by a group of people (2-3ish). In both of those situations a gun doesn't help you.
The fuck? There's almost always time to react/struggle in those situations even if you're caught unaware.
>I know people have this illusion they are action movie stars and can react in a quarter of a second to deflect a blow, whip out a gun, and fire a shot into the crook's crotch, but in reality that just doesn't happen.
It does happen it's just never reported like gun violence. Citizens use guns to stop crimes, it's happened and does happen.
>oh and by the way, if the victim has a weapon, you sure as hell better bet the crook(s) have a weapon, which means it very likely will turn into random shots being fired and an innocent bystander being hit.
Why do you assume every crime is done with a gun? Even with all your childish assumptions it's still a basic right to defend yourself and with a gun if you so choose the legal option.
>The fuck? There's almost always time to react/struggle in those situations even if you're caught unaware.
and here we see the naive pro gunner thinking most attempts to defend oneself from a crime is worthwhile.
Do you even know what happens in a mugging? Here, let me outline it:
Thug A pushes you down from behind.
Thug B and C start kicking you while Thug A looks out for cops.
Once you are unconscious, they rob everything you have on you: wallet, cellphone, jewelry.
10 minutes later, someone sees you lying on the street and calls 911.
What does having a gun in that situation do? They also get to run off with a shiny new weapon that cannot be used to be traced to them if they commit a crime with it.
>It does happen it's just never reported like gun violence. Citizens use guns to stop crimes, it's happened and does happen.
"I SWEAR TO GOD I'LL KILL YOU RIGHT HERE FOR SAYING THE PATRIOTS SUCK" "I HAVE A WEAPON, HERE IT IS" "OH SHIT MY BAD MAN"
YAY FOR GUNS.
(in case you didn't catch on, the only crimes guns really stop are basically bar fights or arguments. Most violent crimes on an innocent happen so quickly they have no way to react whatsoever)
>Why do you assume every crime is done with a gun? Even with all your childish assumptions it's still a basic right to defend yourself and with a gun if you so choose the legal option.
Why do you assume I'm assuming every crime is done with a gun? All I said is having a gun to "defend" yourself on the street is useless. And even if you do get the chance to defend yourself there's a pretty good chance you'll hit someone you weren't aiming at.
You, on the other hand, actually believe that owning a gun makes you any safer from a majority of crimes.
Dude I've been mugged before. We defended ourselves and kept our belongings. You make every mugger made out to be some Liam Neeson badass killing machine. You're stuck, there's a legit reason to carry a firearm and you're trying to deflect it. It's not gonna work. Not every crime works out to this perfect hypothetical you have set up for youself. Criminals fuck up, in the case of the one that robbed me and my buddies with a Ruger 9mm his mistake was trying to aim at another friend and that's all it took to regain control of the situation.
>"I SWEAR TO GOD I'LL KILL YOU RIGHT HERE FOR SAYING THE PATRIOTS SUCK" "I HAVE A WEAPON, HERE IT IS" "OH SHIT MY BAD MAN" YAY FOR GUNS. (in case you didn't catch on, the only crimes guns really stop are basically bar fights or arguments. Most violent crimes on an innocent happen so quickly they have no way to react whatsoever)
You're one of the most ignorant people I've met on this issue. Guns can prevent/stop crime in a lot of situations and they have saved my ass 2x already. From mothers shooting home invaders to people like me stopping a simple mugging IT HAPPENS. Deal with it. So what if it destroys your shit narrative that they have no use.
>Why do you assume I'm assuming every crime is done with a gun? All I said is having a gun to "defend" yourself on the street is useless. And even if you do get the chance to defend yourself there's a pretty good chance you'll hit someone you weren't aiming at. You, on the other hand, actually believe that owning a gun makes you any safer from a majority of crimes.
It's saved me two times (the second time was stopping two men from assaulting my girlfriend at the time, all I had to do is show it and they ran along), two times more than without a gun. There goes your wonderful argument jackass.
>Dude I've been mugged before. We defended ourselves and kept our belongings. You make every mugger made out to be some Liam Neeson badass killing machine. You're stuck, there's a legit reason to carry a firearm and you're trying to deflect it. It's not gonna work. Not every crime works out to this perfect hypothetical you have set up for youself. Criminals fuck up, in the case of the one that robbed me and my buddies with a Ruger 9mm his mistake was trying to aim at another friend and that's all it took to regain control of the situation.
So a criminal tried to rob 2 people by himself and got stopped. This is a perfectly normal situation and represents a majority of crimes
(wait, it doesn't)
>You're one of the most ignorant people I've met on this issue. Guns can prevent/stop crime in a lot of situations and they have saved my ass 2x already. From mothers shooting home invaders to people like me stopping a simple mugging IT HAPPENS. Deal with it. So what if it destroys your shit narrative that they have no use.
I have never ever stated that people shouldn't be able to own guns in their houses. Good straw man 10/10
And again, you were able to regain control of a situation where you outnumbered him. That isn't guns helping defend yourself that's just the criminal being stupid.
>It's saved me two times (the second time was stopping two men from assaulting my girlfriend at the time, all I had to do is show it and they ran along), two times more than without a gun. There goes your wonderful argument jackass.
In other words, they were making rude comments towards your girlfriend and you reacted by pointing a gun at them. AMERICUR
>Until they get mugged, raped, kidnapped, or assaulted. Which by the way some of the above are just as likely to you or more than being killed in a gun homicide/gun rampage.
I love these little glimpses into the paranoid fantasies of gun fetishists, they always explain a lot. "Hordes of rampaging rape-cannibals are lurking around every corner! If there's not a gun in your hand every second of every day they're going to get you!!"
I love these little lapses of reality internet gun control advocates have where they don't acknowledge reality because of big scary guns!
Crime in New York City
Crime type Rate* Homicide: 6.4 Robbery: 235.2 Aggravated assault: 327.6 Violent crime: 581.7 Burglary: 215.0 Larceny-theft: 1,336.0 Motor vehicle theft: 123.8 Arson: N/A Property crime: 1,674.8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrimeinNewYorkCity
Numbers don't lie, even if you do. I've personally been mugged and used a BIG SCARY GUN to defend myself.
Crimes happen sometimes, Dirty Harry. Your security blanket / tiger-repelling rock isn't generating a magical crime-free bubble around you at all times, it's just making your hysterical paranoid ass exponentially more likely to accidentally shoot someone.
Which is why in 20+ years of shooting and owning firearms I haven't shot anyone despite being mugged, went to Iraq in a combat unit, and watched two men assault my girlfriend? Your narrative is almost as pathetic as your cause.
And? I'm not sure what the point of all that unsolicited personal information was supposed to be, but judging by the angry angry angry stream-of-consciousness gibberish you tend to post on this topic I'm starting to wonder if there was even supposed to be a point in the first place.
FUCK, I thought I was going to make it through the whole thread without some petty bitch bringing up the whole "faked cancer" bit..
Just shut the fuck up about it already. It's old news, everything has been said to death.
Dude, he faked having cancer. That's not like leaving his fly down this one time and nobody letting it go. That's like....well, shit, faking cancer. I don't even have anything to compare that to, he went straight for the top!
Wait who faked cancer again? It sounds familiar but I don't recall the situation.
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/qdmb8/thesamedaymydoctortoldmemycancer_was/c3wsz9s
Warphalange, apparently, but I don't know all the details since the whole thing was a bit before my time. Someone will hopefully be along with a summary shortly!
Basically he explained he did it to show how gullible Reddit was and would upvote anything, I'd say he proved his point if that's what he was really trying to do.
and reddit is still butthurt about it :( poor babies
/u/Warphalange made a post in /r/gaming a while back saying that the same day his doctor told him the cancer was gone, he got access to the Diablo 3 beta. the post in question.
Most people started freaking out and following him around, accusing him of karma whoring and lying. According to /u/warphalange, he did it to show that Redditors would upvote anything and everything, even if it wasn't true. He wasn't wrong, but it still left a bad taste in the mouth of most people who came into contact with him.
Now, for the last year and a half, he can't make a post anywhere without people bringing up the fake cancer.
Whatever your opinion about what he did, it's worth giving credit to him for sticking with his guns. He (allegedly) tried to make a point and, it wasn't well received, but he left the post, comments, and everything else in place where a lesser man might have just deleted his account.
That sounds familiar. How'd he get caught? If he posted elsewhere at the same time "I will fake cancer for karma in another subreddit to prove a point" that's one thing, but if it didn't come out until later then he pretty clearly just wanted karma and wasn't expecting to get 'outed.'
I don't buy his explanation for a couple of reasons; karma is meaningless so even if he was trying to prove that anonymous people will make utterly insignificant gestures on the internet that's not exactly a groundbreaking experiment, and even if that was the intent it's a pretty stupid attempt to prove the hypothesis. Of course people will say nice things to someone who claims to have survived cancer, is that really shocking? It's not like they were sending him money, they just clicked the button next to his post. Is that behavior really so problematic that it needs to be discouraged?
He just came out and said it here.
At the time he made the post (and at most other times as well), /r/gaming had massive problems with people upvoting the stupidest posts simply because they were distantly related to something the reader liked. This leaves real news and information buried far below the memes and screenshots of tweets, reducing the quality of the sub (in they eyes of many readers). Clicking the upvote button doesn't do nothing; it actively changes what other users will see.
/u/Warphalange's point was that by upvoting garbage, on average, people were implicitly preferring a screenshot of an uninformative email to actual news or new information.
Whether or not this behavior needs to be discouraged or not is left to the reader to decide.
He outed himself in the thread, claiming that it was stupid that people were up-voting him when he didn't give any proof or something like that.
What he did was wrong, but the point that he made was accurate, people in /r/pics will upvote any sob story no matter what.
>What he did was wrong, but the point that he made was accurate, people in /r/pics will upvote any sob story no matter what.
Is that really a worthwhile battle to be fighting? I'm not that worried about potentially giving away precious, precious karma. If someone posts "hey I beat cancer, here's a picture of my bald happy ass" in /r pics then I'll upvote it. The risk analysis is pretty simple, here: either A) they're telling the truth and giving them a thumbs up costs me nothing, or B) they're lying and giving them a thumbs up costs me nothing. Conversely, I can accuse them of lying and demand proof in which case either A) they really had cancer and I am a horrible asshole or B) they were lying and I gain absolutely nothing. Why bother doubting if they're not asking for anything more than meaningless karma points?
Sometimes I think people here think they can eventually cash in their karma for dollars or something.
I don't disagree with you, but I also just don't think that people should be posting images that wouldn't be interesting without a sob story attached. If there is a sub for that, then cool. But /r/pics and /r/gaming aren't really the place for you to try to be gaining sympathy.
To me it's not the fact that someone is gaining internet points, I don't care about that, it's just the fact that bland content is hitting the front page just because of the OP's life story. But I do agree that there is no sense making a big deal out of it or anything, its not worth it especially if the person really did have some disease/heartache or whatever.
Fair enough, I see what you're saying. Nobody wants their front page to be 100% junk posts, but I don't necessarily agree that someone posting "I beat cancer" is necessarily looking for sympathy. I don't mind a few of those every now and then, even in /r gaming, assuming it's at least tenuously connected to gaming.
>Is that really a worthwhile battle to be fighting?
Probably as worthwhile as most of the other battles fought on reddit.
He told them in the exact same post that it was a trick to prove that reddit would upvote garbage. There was no hiding involved.
ha thanks for jumping down my throat and you don't even know what the fuck was going on, stupid ass. typical.
Nobody jumped down your throat, Princess. I think your dainty feelings may be just a bit too tender to be on the internet, though.
>Dude, he faked having cancer. That's not like leaving his fly down this one time and nobody letting it go. That's like....well, shit, faking cancer. I don't even have anything to compare that to, he went straight for the top!
you little bitch, you didn't even know what was going on. yet you couldn't resist coming here and saying "CANCER! I HEARD HE FAKED CANCER!!!!1" He was trolling, STILL TROLLING. He's got you guys wound up longer than anyone I can think of.
You are really having a nice little freakout over this, aren't you? That is adorable.
lol typical srd user, can't think of a reply....aww :(
He faked cancer to prove a point that /r/gaming is a shithole.
exactly, nobody that has a brain gives a fuck at this point. children are the ones that can't let him say ANYTHING without bringing it up over & fucking over.