This is correct and I've been saying one thing these shooters consistently have in common is a history of severe mental illness and prescriptions for psychotropic drugs.
This guy is not talking about what sys is. At all.
Aaaand this time the senseless shooting was on camera.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
This is correct and I've been saying one thing these shooters consistently have in common is a history of severe mental illness and prescriptions for psychotropic drugs.
This guy is not talking about what sys is. At all.
Do you see what I mean now? No comparison will ever be good enough for you because no other country is EXACTLY the US. Where do you think the Canadians get their drugs?
I do know that the currently more fire arms are leaving the US than coming in from Mexico.
I watched the interview last night and as they were getting into this subject it felt like he was about to go in the direction of getting rid of guns all together, but to his credit he didn't. Those two gentlemen had a lot of cojones to give that interview and hold back their true feelings. I couldn't have done it under those circumstances.
It's no faux outrage. I think you just proved your character ... That's all. For the rest of what you said up there - lots of words. Lots of big words. Very little content. As usual.
PS. No one wants "insane" people to have guns. I've tried to ignore your straw man, but there ... I addressed it.
It's a very slippery slope. Lots of things, if used inappropriately can end life. Guns are so easy to focus on, but they are way down the chain.
But again, you think I'm arguing something I didn't even broach. My point is you're a classless hack, who used a tragedy to further an agenda. You did it while the blood was still on the ground ... And warm. I would never take you seriously, because you're so bitterly obsessed with your views that you'll stoop to any level. That's not debate. That's not discourse. That's just an anarchist throwing bombs.
Since you seem to want to make other arguments, let me ask you this. I understand you may be a lawyer? So are you culpable for future crimes, any time you help a guilty person go free? How many times have you helped a "loaded gun" back on the street?
I really can't take you seriously ... Now wipe the froth off your chin. I'm out of this thread.
That is intellectually dishonest. Don't re-cast my argument and make it extreme because you don't like it. I have stated multiple times that trying to "confiscate" guns is a non starter, and this guy and I are probably lock step. You dismiss the data, the math, the objective proof and somehow want to make policy based an anecdote -- one terrorist attack. You know that's no way to make policy.
So if the shooters all have that in common, why do you give the criminally insane the power to decide who lives and dies with a trigger pull? You sit there and correctly isolate who it is, how it happens (a nut gets a semi-auto so he can kill lots of people quickly), and then...... advocate a policy where a loser gets to decide who lives? And for what? As one of your fellow conservatives said, to prevent the UN from invading? Mega, tell me in recent memory where there was a sensible second amendment stand against government. I can remember a few -- McVeigh. Koresh. The Nevada nut that wanted free land. Is there some pattern of oppression that justifies conferring constitutional right of the insane to conveniently exercise the power of death? What does that look like? Who's gonna shoot who, and over what?
Incomplete list of classless hacks by this standard:
FDR
George W Bush
Medic007
Father of yesterday's victim
Cowguy
I personally shed a few tears yesterday for these two young people and their loves and their families. As a dad I couldn't help but see it from a parent perspective. I wouldn't be able to give an interview in that situation. And I think speaking of intellectual dishonesty, citing the political intent of a grieving father to justify the OP here is ghoulish.
i don't have to cite his political intent, @MegaPoke -- he did it several times yesterday. He did it because he wants change, and you should listen to his perspective, and lots of other people. I was raised with guns, still own them, and have no inherent bias towards guns. I love them, love shooting them, but at some point intellectual honesty trumps my redneck gun love.
I probably should not say that all gun rights freaks deep down enjoy/find satisfaction in the thrill of a lone, nut loser having the ability to kill a great person like that as easy as they can - but after seeing/hearing/reading about it for the umpteenth time, I can't understand the right wing collective shoulder shrug. If Al Qaeda killed that many americans you'd all be screaming to mobilize the entire economy and go to war. You still haven't answered why you're so comfortable empowering the most mentally defective to have such an easy Kill/don't kill power over innocent people.
Okay, Wile E. Coyote. As you take your ball and go home, please consider this heartless, soulless hack who is using the tragedy to further an agenda (it's her father):
"If I have to be the John Walsh of gun control and -- look, I'm for the Second Amendment, but there has to be a way to force politicians that are cowards and in the pockets of the NRA to come to grips and make sense -- have sensible laws so that crazy people can't get guns. It can't be that hard."
Your response doesn't really surprise me because you are innumerate, but just to reiterate:
Any other factors that affect the attempts? Or is everything else equal the only-two-types-of-states comparison?
Maybe the lawyer should read the laws before making statements....
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Maybe your government should enforce the laws that are already in place. Keep beating that UN drum because it is your only defense in an agreement you are losing. Read the laws before you make stupid post then back track.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Maybe your government should enforce the laws that are already in place. Keep beating that UN drum because it is your only defense in an agreement you are losing. Read the laws before you make stupid post then back track.
At least one of those authors has been criticized for cherry picking data to support his views on gun control.
Apparently because I'm racist. Blacks don't kill blacks at a much higher rate than anybody kills anybody else. That's the liberal thought despite the evidence, right?
You have read my posts and the context I've brought it up in. Quit being dense.
Nice dodge of my question to you, again. Do you think more firearms would be flowing to Mexico if the US banned all guns? Do you think the drug cartels, who have been able to fill the void in multiple criminal enterprises, wouldn't do the same if guns were banned?
No comment on the fact that Serbia has a lower homicide rate than Romania despite all those guns?
You're posting in senseless circles with non-valid comparisons. Cute, but not flattering.
Just say what you mean. What is the point you are trying to make? Most people here are roughly familiar with the crime stats you are citing, but again I can't figure out why you are citing it or what point you are making.
See, the shooter was black and crazy, so he's saying we should keep blacks from owning guns instead of crazy people, because of criminal statistics. He's basically using the old white supremacist tactic against blacks, http://www.colorofcrime.com/ which was debunked here: http://www.timwise.org/2004/11/race-crime-and-sloppy-social-science/
He refused to look at other demographic correlations that cut across race -- it's blacks, blacks, blacks. But he's not a racist, he only thinks like them and spreads their message and ignores contrary data. But again -- he's not a racist.
He refused to look at other demographic correlations that cut across race -- it's blacks, blacks, blacks. But he's not a racist, he only thinks like them and spreads their message and ignores contrary data. But again -- he's not a racist.
Of course firearms wouldn't be flowing to Mexico if they were banned in the US. Can they partially fill the void? Yes. Can they fill it to the extent it is filled now? No. Do the cartels supply Kansas with marijuana as well as dispensaries supply Colorado?
Serbia is liberal in allowing the possession of fire arms, but each gun transaction is registered by the police, there is a thorough background check, the owner is responsible for any misuse of the gun, and most people are prohibited from carrying. Their regulations have reduced the use of guns in crime, but not in suicide.
Oh you mean, the same day his daughter got shot to death on live TV? And he probably listened to her dying gasps a hundred times asking what he as a father could've done to save her life? Can you possibly imagine that?
Context, syskatine. You never grasp it. Perhaps these are his heartfelt thoughts. Perhaps he will become an activist. Maybe after the soul wrenching task of burring his 24 year old daughter is completed, he'll find he has much different priorities. How about you give him a minute? I'm pretty sure, even though I don't know the guy, that he probably wouldn't think you politicizing his daughter's murder within an hour of it happening was in "lockstep" with anything he would want.
Talking about guns after a murder is politicizing and downright ghoulish. But, if the dad talks about guns it is OK.
Help my square this. Is it because the dad must be sincerely sad so you can't assume he has ulterior motives like liberty stealing when he talks about guns?
Or is it that he is so obviously sad and grief stricken that you can't hold him to the usual standards of propriety and once he has buried his daughter and we all "give him a minute" if he is still talking about guns it will be politicizing his own daughters death and truly the most monstrous and ghoulish of all things?
If you genuinely need this "squared" I don't see the point in wasting time trying to explain it further. It's either obvious or it's not. Good luck.
The problem is how we treat the mentally ill. Until that's addressed, this mental masturbation about guns is pointless. Speaking of losers, using every sensationalized shooting as fuel for this tired discussion is having exactly the opposite effect among the American public - whose support for gun control is dropping with every single shooting.
The problem again, is on the mental health side. Until you guys get that, intellectual dishonesty is actually your specialty.
The problem again, is on the mental health side. Until you guys get that, intellectual dishonesty is actually your specialty.
Clean up the inner cities and we would have virtually no firearm homicides. A very interesting trend here in the U.S.
3.5/100,000 in 2013.
Context is not welcome in this conversation, racist.
Mega, you are truly a monster for politicizing this issue to further your mental health agenda. My god have mercy on your soul.
Is overmedicating and providing shit support to the mentally ill protected in the Bill of Rights / US Constitution? Because if it is, your post is brilliantly satirical and bitingly poignant. If not, it's completely lame. Can you square this for me?
Clean up the inner cities and we would have virtually no firearm homicides. A very interesting trend here in the U.S.
3.5/100,000 in 2013.
Actually the homicide rate has been decreasing while urbanization has been increasing.
Oh it is only horrible ghoulish politicization if you disagree with it. Got it.
Hypocrite.
Actually the homicide rate has been decreasing while urbanization has been increasing.
You have a gigantic blind spot and I am not going to help you find it.
Name calling is a pretty big red flag that you've been owned. Again.
Son, I should charge other posters rent to take you out for a ride.
Nope. That gun violence is not the issue. Racist.Clean up the inner cities and we would have virtually no firearm homicides. A very interesting trend here in the U.S.
3.5/100,000 in 2013.
Crazy people who most likely wouldn't have been prevented from legally obtaining a firearm to commit yesterday's murders, which is far less common but much more public than the daily inner city massacres, is THE REAL ISSUE.
Racist.
I would retort that citing the Bill of Rights to determine who is the politicizing ghoul is the biggest red flag.
Let the record show that this thread is a very entertaining read, even with all the blanks from my ignore list. Predictably, I can fill in the blanks with the usual tripe shoveled from the left, but it gets tougher when the left starts name-calling.
Right... because I started the thread.
Can you even articulate what you think I am being a hypocrite about? I'm suggesting that the public doesn't support gun control - so guess what? It's dead. But the good news is that guns weren't the problem anyway. The problem is that we as a society tend to overmedicate and under-treat the mentally ill. I mean, that should be a position any leftist could get behind. I'm genuinely confused as to why you think overhauling our mental health system and catching these people before they fall through the cracks and transcend from victim of the system to perpetrator is objectionable.
I can only assume that it undermines your positions on guns, and is therefore inconvenient. But hey man... educate me.
I don't find any of the mental health stuff objectionable. In fact I agree with all of that. I don't even want to take away your guns.
I disagree with the idea that talking about ways to prevent these horrible things is some how, ghoulish, politicizing, or inappropriate.
The hypocrisy is calling some one you disagree with a politicizing ghoul for talking about what to do to prevent these tragedies and the turning around and talking about mental health reform to prevent these tragedies.
Bringing it up specifically as a political topic when it's still a developing news story - and an incredibly shocking one at that - is incredibly shallow and clearly inappropriate in my opinion. It conveys that the OP waits for every fresh opportunity to re-introduce the opportunity to call others rednecks and losers. "Merica" and so on. He's an ass. I wouldn't defend this thread even if I agreed with everything he said. But it's not the end of the world. It's not the first time he's done this and it won't be the last. Do you think he showed good judgement in starting this thread, when he did and making it political? Simple question. To me, this was an NSB kind of topic while it was still developing and a 24/7 topic once the analysis of what happened began.
Again... he is a politicizing ghoul, not for disagreeing with me... but for bringing this up while the news crew's bodies are probably still in transit from the crime scene to the morgue. The discussion having then been joined, invited responses for alternate view points, which hours later and in this case, a day later, I offered some thoughts that the problem with these events is rooted in our mental health system, not our gun laws. It would be refreshing if we could just organically react to the horror of witnessing murder on live TV without having it turned instantly into political fuel. And I would say the same about anyone of any political stripe.
