Aaaand this time the senseless shooting was on camera.
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
What's surprising to me is that gun violence in general is down substantially from where it was 20 years ago as our school shootings/homicides yet from listening to the media and the anti-gun crowd you'd think we were at levels of epic proportion.
I know many disagree but Obama was on the right track by issuing an executive order to force the SSA to comply with reporting those receiving social security for mental defect to the NICS database. That database right now is the only way of keeping guns out of the hands of nuts and if the data in it is garbage then it's garbage. There is reasonable compromise to be had on this issue but as with most issues these days few believe in being reasonable or compromising.
I know many disagree but Obama was on the right track by issuing an executive order to force the SSA to comply with reporting those receiving social security for mental defect to the NICS database. That database right now is the only way of keeping guns out of the hands of nuts and if the data in it is garbage then it's garbage. There is reasonable compromise to be had on this issue but as with most issues these days few believe in being reasonable or compromising.
You guys are caricatures, and apparently expect some type of immunity when someone else gets their brains blown out by one of your loser patriots upon who you've conferred a constitutional right to determine who gets to live and die. You predictably followed the chicken$hit right wing talking points: Don't politicize it, and blame blacks/nuts:
@MegaPoke -- Yes, don't politicize it. Just take it, as Gov. Jindal says, just pray.... don't actually advocate doing something. Here's one response to the predictable right wing call for silence when one of the loser patriots they've armed kills yet someone else that watches a movie or goes to work:
1. "Don't politicize this!"Always a good take, and it involves ethical analysis as weighty as Galileo measuring the fall of a feather compared to a feather. I don't mean you shouldn't politicize this tragedy, of course – far from it. You should just shout that at everyone else. The net effect of stating that someone else should not politicize an event is declaring that their political opinion about it is unwelcome, crass, predatory or invalid. You can shame them for capitalizing on something terrible and get away with silencing someone else's opinion without offering one yourself and thus implicitly state that your unspoken view is the only reasonable response. Don't worry about seeming ethically inconsistent on this. Your refusal to countenance political calls for disarming Americans will work just as well even if you've spent the last month screaming about the sanctity of human life and calling for the end of federally funded abortions by a group that doesn't perform abortions with federal funds, all because you saw some edited videotapes created by Dr. Nick Riviera's Fetus Defense Hut. Human life is serious business, especially if someone you agree with has FinalCut Pro. If someone you disagree with has a Vine, we must wait the appropriate amount of time until most fellow Americans are no longer thinking about this.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-latest-mass-shooting-20150826#ixzz3k6imOc4R
2. @Medic007 Instead of politicizing it, we should just blame black people:
Blame black people.This is a great move, because nobody will think this statement is racist when you've already made it clear during every other shooting that shootings are never about race. But you may want to tease this take out a little, develop it, really come at it from all sorts of angles, because the historically extremely ethical Breitbart.com already ran with this:
Yes, the shooter allegedly faxed a "manifesto" about avenging those slain in the Charleston massacre, but he also blamed bullying, homophobia and sexual harassment. And surely all those white shooters who were troubled, lone gunman, separatists or disgruntled tell us that no one actor is representative of his race or the motives of the same. No matter, if you happen to be conservative, focusing on the shooter's race takes care of all your problems for you, because the problem is now a black person, just like all the other problems. Did someone — whether mentally ill, with a prior conviction, or a sane, upstanding citizen fully permitted through every legal process — use a device for its intended purpose of hurling lethal force into an organism? Yeah, sure, but he was black. Bing, bang, boom, we're done here. Just to be safe, throw up some I'm not racist! chaff about Chicago and black-on-black shooting deaths — because then that also makes black people other black people's problem — and close with head-shaking at how this kind of militancy is all too common and undermines the message of black activists you would be willing to sit down with, like Martin Luther King, Jr.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...e-latest-mass-shooting-20150826#ixzz3k6ji73WW
Having now read this whole thread, I'm not sure if you're trolling, or if you just don't know how to comprehend written words on a page.
Poster 1: "I think ham is the ultimate breakfast meat."
Syskatine: you are an idiot, poster 1. You should never put ketchup on hot dogs."
It's like you're having a conversation in your head, and ignoring everything else.
Carry on.
The guy was reprimanded for wearing an Obama sticker on camera. You have a loose grasp on reality.
Just a matter of timing then? Is the standard now 24 hours after a tragedy before we can discuss preventing other tragedies? It is completely arbitrary and illogical. Just a way to silence those who oppose you.
Oops. I didn't bother to read that keyboard diarrhea, so thank you for the summary.
I think I get it now.... Is this about right?
Well, if that's true you should be thankful I can go get a semiautomatic gun, follow the voices in my head and then decide which 2 or 3 dozen people in my vicinity deserve to die in about oh... 15 seconds. It's pretty much how ya'll want it, you must be proud to enable that.
So far, I've failed to 1. Follow the timeline that conservatives demand, and 2. followed the narrative and boilerplate, debunked talking points that conservatives demand dominate the discussion. Whatever.
Pretty sure you can't take out 3 dozen people in 15 seconds. You can't even hyperbole right.
Well, you make a point. Lots of them would just be shot, and not totally killed. When you're fantasizing about fighting the federal government did you do any calculations about your kill rate?
More as you are on American soil threating to take people out with guns you own. Why would you ever want to kill 2 or 3 dozen people? I wouldn't even want to kill you or see you hurt. You need some help maybe an anger management course or two. First though have a friend come get those guns before someone gets hurt.
Definitely not a decision you could make in 15 seconds. You'd have to figure out the races, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, disability status, and party affiliation of all of your potential targets so you could then make sure you are not shooting anybody covered by the liberal agenda.
Certainly not an exhaustive list, but you'd have to exclude Muslims, atheists, blacks, illegal immigrants, Democrats, Independents who will vote Democrat, environmental activists, women who like Hillary, welfare recipients, criminals, drug addicts, union members, gays, Planned Parenthood employees, transgendered people, non-whites shot by a white cop, etc etc.
By the time you got around to identifying the white, Christian, Republican, heterosexual, employed, non-criminal, non-drug addict, non-union males, you would have been shot to death or laughed at and beaten unconscious.
So your solution is the initiation of force against law abiding citizens simply because you think it will assist in preventing those who are not law abiding citizens from violating the law i.e. murder via firearm?
Another question @syskatine . Do you wish to see the complete prohibition of the right to own firearms? Would you consider yourself anti-gun?
Last edited:
Wow you're angry. Give me your gps location so I can get the ATF to come take your weapons.
Yes. We do it with:
1. Mandatory driver's licensure;
2. Mandatory auto liabilty insurance;
3. Prohibitions against .50 cal machine guns
4. Prohibitions against homemade sarin/mustard gas
5. Requiring professional licensure
6. Aircraft industry regulation from rootlum to tootlum;
etc.......
The many are inconvenienced (or as you characterize it, ultimately have force initiated against them for non-compliance) in each case to prevent the irresponsible or incompetent from damaging other people.
So you're not really against guns you just prefer the monopolization of guns into the hands of the state? Tell me, how many are murdered every year by guns held in the hands of the state? How many wars occurred in Europe until the threat of mutual destruction?
Even before gun control in the UK the U.S. Still had a homicide rate 12.5 times higher than the UK. This hints at something cultural. Another interesting fact is home robberies in the UK, 45% occur while the family is home vs only 9% in the U.S. Lastly, a study by the FSU criminology department found that guns are used 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year for self defense in the U.S. That number may even be low. That's an awful lot of new victims you'll be creating in your short sighted and over reactive legislation. The initiation of force against the people is immoral and the state will certainly need guns to take guns.
Even before gun control in the UK the U.S. Still had a homicide rate 12.5 times higher than the UK. This hints at something cultural. Another interesting fact is home robberies in the UK, 45% occur while the family is home vs only 9% in the U.S. Lastly, a study by the FSU criminology department found that guns are used 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year for self defense in the U.S. That number may even be low. That's an awful lot of new victims you'll be creating in your short sighted and over reactive legislation. The initiation of force against the people is immoral and the state will certainly need guns to take guns.
A lot to respond to Thor -- Would you to commit to one side or another with a data set? Are the European statistical models fair comparison or not? If so, don't run up the "well that's just a cultural difference" flag, but use the stats when they support your position.
I don't know about "the state". Are you lumping in all states, all circumstances? ISIS executions, Iraq war, all of it? Some states are more trustworthy with guns than others, it also depends on the guns, the degree of the ban, the history of the state and populace, etc.
I don't know about "the state". Are you lumping in all states, all circumstances? ISIS executions, Iraq war, all of it? Some states are more trustworthy with guns than others, it also depends on the guns, the degree of the ban, the history of the state and populace, etc.
Wow, actual data instead of pop culture hyperbole? I predict at best, a misdirected, personally insulting answer.
One thing you won't get is any similarly researched stat-backed reply that looks at context rather than broad unexplained numbers.
Basically you are right. They don't want to eliminate guns. They just want ownership to be monopolized by the government. And police commit gun crimes at exactky the same rate as private gun owners.
Crime is demonstrably lowest in areas where there are fewer gun laws.
Violent crimes actually are more dangerous in areas where criminals use clubs and knives because they lack the intimidation factor of a gun. Weird but true.
And, while a gun may not seem necessary in the gates communities many of these white limousine liberals live in, the urban areas where crime is highest are dangerous places for the largely minority populations who live there.
So gun control advocates are racists.
And sexists! By taking away the best way for a woman to level the playing field against an attacker, they prove that empowering women is basically bullshit.
Commit to one side or the other? I don't even know what that means. I gave statistics. I pointed out that there are hints of cultural differences at play. Is it possible that cultural reasons are at play for more burglaries while the owners are home in the UK? Sure. Your problem appears to be that you take a black and white view on this subject.
Interesting, some states are more responsible with guns than other states. You're willing to accept that states should be evaluated on an individual basis because it "depends" on the factors you point out above but you are unwilling to give individual citizens that same degree consideration, citizens should just lose their right totally. Tell me, how do you reconcile the fact that an irresponsible state is capable of murdering far more innocents over any given time frame than any one irresponsible citizen.
By your very own logic would it not make more sense to ban the holding of guns from states while allowing the populace to own guns? This would greatly minimize the number of innocents murdered by an irresponsible party.
Interesting, some states are more responsible with guns than other states. You're willing to accept that states should be evaluated on an individual basis because it "depends" on the factors you point out above but you are unwilling to give individual citizens that same degree consideration, citizens should just lose their right totally. Tell me, how do you reconcile the fact that an irresponsible state is capable of murdering far more innocents over any given time frame than any one irresponsible citizen.
By your very own logic would it not make more sense to ban the holding of guns from states while allowing the populace to own guns? This would greatly minimize the number of innocents murdered by an irresponsible party.
Last edited:
European statistical models are useful but don't allow accurate direct comparisons.
Europe has always benefitted from limiting the population's access to weapons. That would be a dangerous thing for historically feudal systems. Their culture would be vastly different if theor citizens were historically heavily armed. Conversely, American culture, growth and expansion heavily depended on armed private citizens nation building into the wilderness.
So yes, culturally different.
And Thor's point about Europe constantky being at war prior to the nuclear age shouldn't be glossed over. Mutually assured destruction has curbed constant invasions and wars there.
Similar model keeps violent crime on the decline here even as gun ownership rises. Huh.
This...is an ass-kicking in proper statistical analysis.
If statistics demonstrate that a high degree of gun ownership in some areas correlates to lower crime, while in other areas a high degree of gun ownership correlates to higher crime,
or conversely in same areas of low gun ownership, there is a resulting (said loosely) low area for crime, while in other low gun ownership areas, there is a high level of crime....
What universal conclusions can be drawn?
I ask, because aren't Progressives pushing for an action at the Federal level? It seems that way.
So, again, given the above scenarios, demonstrated by statistics, what universal conclusions can be drawn?
If a study shows that 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year a gun was used in the act of self defense, how is the removal of guns, or some proportion of guns (down to a break-even scenario with crimes committed by guns) a Progressive position using the original definition of the word?
I'll answer, because I know the answers provided will not specifically address the question. The positions you espouse are not progressive at all. It is simply you espousing a value, based on your inherently limited knowledge, mixing in some instinctive thinking (less guns = less crimes), cloaking that personal "value" in a political stance, and using every opportunity you can to say your personal "value" is accurate...even if it makes you look like a complete and utter dipsh*t.
I personally would contend that we first look at your personal "value" before moving on to the statistics. Because without truly knowing you, Sys, we don't know why you may or may not lie, exaggerate, try some slight of hand, distort, etc, when making an argument. What we do know, is that you are not advocating a position of liberty. Therefore, it is you whose intentions should be placed under the microscope. I'm sure they are as pure as the driven snow.
So....by bullet point, Sys....why are you making this case? How does this personally involve you? How does having this conversation with other members of the board make you feel? And why?
or conversely in same areas of low gun ownership, there is a resulting (said loosely) low area for crime, while in other low gun ownership areas, there is a high level of crime....
What universal conclusions can be drawn?
I ask, because aren't Progressives pushing for an action at the Federal level? It seems that way.
So, again, given the above scenarios, demonstrated by statistics, what universal conclusions can be drawn?
If a study shows that 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year a gun was used in the act of self defense, how is the removal of guns, or some proportion of guns (down to a break-even scenario with crimes committed by guns) a Progressive position using the original definition of the word?
I'll answer, because I know the answers provided will not specifically address the question. The positions you espouse are not progressive at all. It is simply you espousing a value, based on your inherently limited knowledge, mixing in some instinctive thinking (less guns = less crimes), cloaking that personal "value" in a political stance, and using every opportunity you can to say your personal "value" is accurate...even if it makes you look like a complete and utter dipsh*t.
I personally would contend that we first look at your personal "value" before moving on to the statistics. Because without truly knowing you, Sys, we don't know why you may or may not lie, exaggerate, try some slight of hand, distort, etc, when making an argument. What we do know, is that you are not advocating a position of liberty. Therefore, it is you whose intentions should be placed under the microscope. I'm sure they are as pure as the driven snow.
So....by bullet point, Sys....why are you making this case? How does this personally involve you? How does having this conversation with other members of the board make you feel? And why?
Just refer to his own language. His biggest fear is losers randomly killing their betters. He calls all of us losers, and presumably he views himself as our better. Smarter, more enlightened and so on.
He is a proud statist and has said so. It's not about being progressive. That's just a beard.
So you're not really against guns you just prefer the monopolization of guns into the hands of the state?
Well it depends on the state, Thor. Are we talking about U.S. or Sudan? Is the government kicking in doors and beheading people? Do you have roving bands of religious zealots doing that plus more? Stated in very rough terms, if you don't have those things, but a repeat pattern of irrational lunatics killing as many civilians as they can has emerged then you're getting closer to a justified monopolization of guns. Now I've done my bestto answer your question, and did it by heeding your advice to not be so black and white. The country matters. If you take the closest data set, I think it's western, democratic, first world democracies. In those states, I'm more likely to swing in the direction of gun control/monopolization. I'm not sure I'm ever for total monopolization, fwiw. You're not totally against it, either.
I've done my best (no doubt shittily) to answer your question. At the risk of a chorus of bitching because I also ask questions, would like you to answer whether you feel the US (not a random "state") on a federal level should "monopolize", as you put it each of these weapons:
Bolt action deer rifle with 3 rounds?
Twin .50 cal mounted machine guns in the back of a pickup?
M60?
SAMs?
Derringer?
Claymore mine?
Uzi 9mm?
Hand grenade?
Sig .40?
I think if you truthfully answer that, I predict we're not as far apart as you think.
Tell me, how many are murdered every year by guns held in the hands of the state?
Which state? Every government, everywhere? You didn't answer. I don't know. I'll stipulate to whatever # you want, and however you want to count it. I refuse to analyze the gun policy of the US by the data of a third world, anarchist shithole where everyone is shooting someone. Or getting shot. If you have a # for the type of countries I said above (like us), I'm in. Then, let's compare it to the overall homicide rate, i.e. non-government killings in those countries, including the us. You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive.
How many wars occurred in Europe until the threat of mutual destruction?
Well, I see your point but do we also want the other side of the coin, i.e. an arms race (I"ll see your.38 and raise it a grenade or BAR.) (@CBradSmith , you big pussy, that's an acronym for an old WWII gun and Clyde Barrow had one too.) And the ability of mutually assured destruction is kind of the problem, isn't it? Do you want @CBradSmith to be walking around drunk on a Saturday night, hormonal and drunk, with a suitcase nuke? One perceived slight and Oak Lawn is a glowing crater. I think the practical limits of mutually assured destruction without it getting crazy (like we keep seeing in the news) is somewhere like 2 rounds, maybe 3 to enable hunting... for Brad. Well, 18 for Brad, but only Brad, the rest of the country gets 3, max and I suspect all reasonable people are accomodated. I, of course, am a sportsman and remarkable marksman so only 1 is required.
Even before gun control in the UK the U.S. Still had a homicide rate 12.5 times higher than the UK. This hints at something cultural. Another interesting fact is home robberies in the UK, 45% occur while the family is home vs only 9% in the U.S. Where's a link for this? Lastly, a study by the FSU criminology department found that guns are used 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year for self defense in the U.S. That number may even be low. That's an awful lot of new victims you'll be creating in your short sighted and over reactive legislation. The initiation of force against the people is immoral and the state will certainly need guns to take guns.
*********
Interesting, some states are more responsible with guns than other states. You're willing to accept that states should be evaluated on an individual basis because it "depends" on the factors you point out above but you are unwilling to give individual citizens that same degree consideration, citizens should just lose their right totally. I think any sensible person can agree that individuals, when taken across a whole country, should not have some guns. If there's some tailored background check process that the gun industry is willing to pay for, hell yeah -- I'm all in. I'll totally agree to a detailed, individualized inquiry for gun ownership. It sounds too expensive and impractical in a country of 340 million but I'm not intellectually opposed to it.
By your very own logic would it not make more sense to ban the holding of guns from states while allowing the populace to own guns? This would greatly minimize the number of innocents murdered by an irresponsible Well, again, in some states, definitely, and it depends on the system of government. If it's not democratic, the calculus is different. The beauty of democracy is that revolutions are guaranteed when the voters want one. Nobody needs a gun for it.
Well it depends on the state, Thor. Are we talking about U.S. or Sudan? Is the government kicking in doors and beheading people? Do you have roving bands of religious zealots doing that plus more? Stated in very rough terms, if you don't have those things, but a repeat pattern of irrational lunatics killing as many civilians as they can has emerged then you're getting closer to a justified monopolization of guns. Now I've done my bestto answer your question, and did it by heeding your advice to not be so black and white. The country matters. If you take the closest data set, I think it's western, democratic, first world democracies. In those states, I'm more likely to swing in the direction of gun control/monopolization. I'm not sure I'm ever for total monopolization, fwiw. You're not totally against it, either.
I've done my best (no doubt shittily) to answer your question. At the risk of a chorus of bitching because I also ask questions, would like you to answer whether you feel the US (not a random "state") on a federal level should "monopolize", as you put it each of these weapons:
Bolt action deer rifle with 3 rounds?
Twin .50 cal mounted machine guns in the back of a pickup?
M60?
SAMs?
Derringer?
Claymore mine?
Uzi 9mm?
Hand grenade?
Sig .40?
I think if you truthfully answer that, I predict we're not as far apart as you think.
Tell me, how many are murdered every year by guns held in the hands of the state?
Which state? Every government, everywhere? You didn't answer. I don't know. I'll stipulate to whatever # you want, and however you want to count it. I refuse to analyze the gun policy of the US by the data of a third world, anarchist shithole where everyone is shooting someone. Or getting shot. If you have a # for the type of countries I said above (like us), I'm in. Then, let's compare it to the overall homicide rate, i.e. non-government killings in those countries, including the us. You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive.
How many wars occurred in Europe until the threat of mutual destruction?
Well, I see your point but do we also want the other side of the coin, i.e. an arms race (I"ll see your.38 and raise it a grenade or BAR.) (@CBradSmith , you big pussy, that's an acronym for an old WWII gun and Clyde Barrow had one too.) And the ability of mutually assured destruction is kind of the problem, isn't it? Do you want @CBradSmith to be walking around drunk on a Saturday night, hormonal and drunk, with a suitcase nuke? One perceived slight and Oak Lawn is a glowing crater. I think the practical limits of mutually assured destruction without it getting crazy (like we keep seeing in the news) is somewhere like 2 rounds, maybe 3 to enable hunting... for Brad. Well, 18 for Brad, but only Brad, the rest of the country gets 3, max and I suspect all reasonable people are accomodated. I, of course, am a sportsman and remarkable marksman so only 1 is required.
Even before gun control in the UK the U.S. Still had a homicide rate 12.5 times higher than the UK. This hints at something cultural. Another interesting fact is home robberies in the UK, 45% occur while the family is home vs only 9% in the U.S. Where's a link for this? Lastly, a study by the FSU criminology department found that guns are used 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year for self defense in the U.S. That number may even be low. That's an awful lot of new victims you'll be creating in your short sighted and over reactive legislation. The initiation of force against the people is immoral and the state will certainly need guns to take guns.
*********
Interesting, some states are more responsible with guns than other states. You're willing to accept that states should be evaluated on an individual basis because it "depends" on the factors you point out above but you are unwilling to give individual citizens that same degree consideration, citizens should just lose their right totally. I think any sensible person can agree that individuals, when taken across a whole country, should not have some guns. If there's some tailored background check process that the gun industry is willing to pay for, hell yeah -- I'm all in. I'll totally agree to a detailed, individualized inquiry for gun ownership. It sounds too expensive and impractical in a country of 340 million but I'm not intellectually opposed to it.
By your very own logic would it not make more sense to ban the holding of guns from states while allowing the populace to own guns? This would greatly minimize the number of innocents murdered by an irresponsible Well, again, in some states, definitely, and it depends on the system of government. If it's not democratic, the calculus is different. The beauty of democracy is that revolutions are guaranteed when the voters want one. Nobody needs a gun for it.
Last edited:
Then quit enabling losers. There's no defense to it, you know it's true, and the constitutional right you choose to dig in on enables losers to have great power over good people's lives. You see it over and over, and your solution is..... eh. You'd think on some level you'd have some emotional reaction about it. You guys will lose sleep over hillary's ankles but a beautiful woman shot by a loser produces obstruction and resistance to change. Hell, I'm being charitable by saying on some level your demographic likes the ability of a loser to have so much violent power over his betters.
The Constitutional right you refer to enables good people to protect themselves. I believe Thor cited 2.5 million instances a year. Do you debate this?
The losers you reference are in nearly (if not literally) every circumstance, severely mentally ill and highly overmedicated with powerful psychotropic drugs - which can cause or enhance violent sociopathic behavior, delusions, etc. The problem is the mental heath system in the United States. And there are already poorly enforced laws that exist to prevent such "losers" from owning firearms.
I had a very emotional reaction about this shooting sys. You on the other hand, immediately seized upon it as an opportunity to troll your gun control bullshit.
You sir are nobody's better. So don't worry about it.
Typical need to be spoonfed @syskatine
Did you get some of your dignity back? Feeling better there, little fella?
Did you get some of your dignity back? Feeling better there, little fella?
See...this right here.
The problem, @syskatine , is that you're either too stupid, unwilling, or simply can't (due to lack of evidence), make a forceful case.
- Too stupid; plausible. At minimum, I question your efficacy as a lawyer based on your performances here.
- Unwilling; then stop badgering people. And in this scenario, you're a hypocrite for claiming to care but not putting actions where your words are.
- Simply can't due to lack of evidence; if you have even a rudimentary understanding of statistics, this is the most likely scenario. There is no blanket statistical evidence to support your claim compellingly, hence your tantrum throwing, demonization, and appeal to people's emotion. Oh, you do intuitive lip service, but you don't support your assertions with data.
Come with something legit and, at minimum, I would give you a fair shake. But you are about as far away from understanding meaningful statistics as CUP is from voting for W for a 3rd term.
But, by all means, continue to demonize otherwise decent human beings. I'm not going to try to remove that from you. Makes you a sh*thead, but God's given each of us our own little unique place in life.
Also interesting... not a word about the deputy sheriff who was executed in Texas. A government officer killed by a loser with a gun. Seems like a perfect opportunity to expand the troll.
