Aaaand this time the senseless shooting was on camera.

[MegaPoke]

What is the difference here? Why is one an outrage and one doesn't even merit mention.

Both sarcastic. Both reference a recent tragedy. One uses it in an effort to reduce tragedy and one uses it to win an internet pissing contest.

 

[Medic007]

One uses it in an effort to reduce tragedy.

HOLY SHIT! syskatine saving the USA one message board troll post at a time!

No seriously, you were kidding when you typed this right?

 

[poke2001]

 

[wyomingosualum]

For those of you that don't know, poke2001 very publicly and confidently predicted Mitt Romsney to win last cycle. He was reading right wing blogs and really drinking the cool-aid, and it cost him several months of exile from this board. As I recall, he spotted a conspiracy to skew the polling. Yes -- he thought all the polling was a lamestream media conspiracy, like sarah palin might allege. He won't talk about it -- he just criticizes me all the time now and tattles to the moderator when he gets the chance. The other cons were too cagey to take the bet. Not him.

I nominate this for douchebag post of the quarter.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Thor, I just think you guys are batshit crazy when it comes to guns. Your point about governments killing people is well taken, but it has little applicability to determining what kinds of guns should be on American streets. You try to say because our military is real good at its job, and uses big guns, that rank and file citizenry needs access to the same armaments? Why? Our government hasn't used a daisy cutter here on anyone, or a M60 for that matter. Obama is actually trying to demilitarize police departments, and I'd think you'd be all for that.

Gun control vs. selecting which countries to invade/military fights overseas are just two separate issues, imo.

I still haven't heard a single practical alternative from a conservative that would put a stop or even a dent in these mass shootings. You seem to be all for licensure (or individualized inquiry, to use your parlance) but isn't that a non-starter to you second amendment enthusiasts?

We haven't really discussed my views on the matter. What we are discussing is what I view as you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You state that gun control v. selecting which countries to invade are two separate issues. What you are really saying is that innocents dying at the hands of individuals is a travesty but innocents dying at the hands of a government is nothing to be mourned, it's collateral damage per say. You then try to deflect the argument over to me advocating individuals owning WMD's or whatever keeps you from having to deal with the cognitive dissonance associated with discovering an inconsistency in your opinion or what you "know" is fact.

I remember a lot of righteous indignation, and rightfully so in my view, over Rumsfeld shrugging off collateral damage and saying soldiers are fungible (and evidence of anti-social behavior among politicians, another subject for another day). I know for a fact cup was on here screaming about it and you may have been as well. So what was it? Was it that people really were insulted at the fact that someone could just so effortlessly shrug off the deaths of innocents? Or was it just another political opportunity to attack the opposition i.e. fake outrage?

You and cup's posts lend strongly to the latter. You have a serious inconsistency in your view on the subject and you also engage in conformational bias regularly which further identifies the inconsistencies and go team point of view. So as I tried to communicate earlier, your outrage seems to be directly linked to a political agenda and not to the real consequence at all. Which is the death of innocent people regardless of who is committing the murder. Is not the death of innocents something to mourn regardless of who is doing the killing?

 

[MegaPoke]

Let's see if an illustration helps sys understand Thor's point.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Let's see if an illustration helps sys understand Thor's point.

Ha Ha!! Good one! Here's another point you can illustrate: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...college-in-mass-killing/ar-AAf0MOh?li=BBkWgwN

That second amendment still working good? 10 dead kids?

 

[MegaPoke]

Ha Ha!! Good one! Here's another point you can illustrate: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gu...college-in-mass-killing/ar-AAf0MOh?li=BBkWgwN

That second amendment still working good? 10 dead kids?

Yep. It was another gun free zone.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Inky, I have in other threads, and I need to get to work, but the short version is I would allow civil liability for enablers of gun violence. If you have a gun, you're on the hook for whatever happens with it. If you sell it to someone and they do a columbine, you're on the hook. It basically extends strict liability (like if your tiger gets loose and kills someone -- you want a tiger, you own whatever it does in your neighborhood) I think the effect of allowing civil liability would be more effective at keeping guns out of wackos and criminals hands.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

This guy needs to GTFO @PDT816

Hey @poke2001, how are you?

 

[PDT816]

Hey @poke2001, how are you?

is this supposed to mean anything to me?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

is this supposed to mean anything to me?

In what sense?

 

[squeak]

What a great thread...lol

 

[MegaPoke]

What a great thread...lol

Usually, he would have to pay good money to receive this kind of humiliation.