INTENSITY²

Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: odeon on October 02, 2017, 12:25:42 PM

Title: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 02, 2017, 12:25:42 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 02, 2017, 01:01:31 PM
Well that's what you get for having a well regulated militia.     :'(
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 02, 2017, 01:45:56 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 03, 2017, 12:32:59 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 03, 2017, 01:05:23 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.


Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 06:50:03 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:

I'm not trying to, you are. You're both deflecting and projecting. God you're fucking dense.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 03, 2017, 06:59:23 AM
It sounded like it was a fully automatic weapon aren't they currently "controlled" and not sold anymore? So would "controlling the weapon that he used or any other weapon have made ANY difference to him having used the weapon?

These are serious questions.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 03, 2017, 07:00:58 AM
I don't know.

I'm on the fence anymore. I used to think people had enough common sense to decide. Then I see people like a woman I know with a permit to carry with her hand on the gun in her purse every time she encounters a strange man. She is honestly terrified of being raped, she's never been raped...and I'll be blunt...no one sane wants a piece of that...there is no past trama...she's just a very, very paranoid nutcase. I question whether she should own knives let alone have a permit to carry.

The older I get the more I'm around people, the more I'm around them the more I see how stupid some truly are.

My big question...they are reporting now that they found 42 guns in the motel room...10 of them rifles. How the fuck did he get them in??? The motels I've stayed at you were lucky if you could sneak in a coffee pot and you had to lock up any loose change or towels brought from home or they disappeared at cleaning time.

They can find $2.00 in quarters and a coffee pot, but not one cleaning person saw anything...are they fucking blind?? They definitely aren't cleaning under that bed.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 03, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 03, 2017, 07:15:23 AM
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.

Are they legal to own and are they legal to buy? I am not sure whether or not they are legal to own BUT in terms of restricting the ability to purchase one, my understanding is that they ARE restricted and not available for purchase and that "gun control" is, therefore, a moot point as "restricting it via gun control" would not have made a difference if it is ALREADY not available for purchase. I MAY be wrong.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 07:35:06 AM
It sounded like it was a fully automatic weapon aren't they currently "controlled" and not sold anymore?

You need to get a class 3 firearms license from the Fed government. The number of permits was frozen a couple of decades ago so in order to get one, you have to have one given to you from a previous license holder. The background check to qualify for one is the same as getting a top secret security clearance.

Quote
So would "controlling the weapon that he used or any other weapon have made ANY difference to him having used the weapon?

These are serious questions.

No. Either he modified the AR-15's that he had to be full auto or he used one of many trigger manipulating devices which mimic automatic fire.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 07:47:18 AM
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.

That's somewhat of a myth.

They can be modified but it takes a competent gunsmith to do it.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 03, 2017, 08:50:48 AM
As for the automatic....some are very easily modified.

That's somewhat of a myth.

They can be modified but it takes a competent gunsmith to do it.

Not technically "fully automatic" (bump firing) but changing the stock on something like an AR-15 is easy enough and legal.

400 to 800 rounds a minute.

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 03, 2017, 12:08:08 PM
Just read another news clip...apparently that's exactly what he used.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-massacre-ar-15-rifle-guns/
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 12:49:56 PM
Just read another news clip...apparently that's exactly what he used.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooter-massacre-ar-15-rifle-guns/

Yeah, I saw that too.

Technically it's still a semi-auto though because it only fires 1 round for each pull of the trigger, it simply manipulates the trigger mechanically (perfectly legal).
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 01:12:42 PM
As it turns out, one of the survivors is one of my buddies from the Marines.

I might post some of his testimony if he's ok with that.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 03, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 03, 2017, 02:14:18 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

But you do for the US? Guessing there are people in Las Vegas and elsewhere that would disagree. :finger:

I'm not trying to, you are. You're both deflecting and projecting. God you're fucking dense.

I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting, I'm *reacting*, and you seem unable to. I'm wondering if maybe you'll simply never see it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, your constitutional excuse to kill each other.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 03, 2017, 02:30:34 PM
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 03, 2017, 03:41:11 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 03, 2017, 04:19:20 PM
"No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence."

Which is why the amendment is

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One site I looked at said that the amendment was used to keep the Southern states in the union.  Their militias were slave owners and hunters who needed guns to keep the slaves in line.  Not sure how accurate this is, but it sounds possible.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Gopher Gary on October 03, 2017, 06:07:13 PM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 03, 2017, 07:40:33 PM
Gun sales/stocks will go up ten-fold now, and people will be waiting in line and buying ammo like pez. Always happens after something like this.

Some nutter does something like this here and everybody panics and starts stocking up like they're going to discontinue their favorite flavor of soda pop.

They can ban guns right now and honestly it still would take 20 years to probably see any effect, because every gun owner from here to California is going to be hiding and stockpiling anything they can get their hands on. First few years will probably work as well as prohibition did...and that's if after 8 years a new administration doesn't come in financially backed to the teeth by some gun organization/company and change the rules back again. :P



Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 12:24:01 AM
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.

Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 12:30:13 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 12:33:05 AM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 04, 2017, 02:11:00 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Gopher Gary on October 04, 2017, 03:30:20 AM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies?  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 04, 2017, 05:43:40 AM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22089369_1746936788714132_4447231473543275308_n.jpg?oh=aec9772be13e84a244b543ef39e764b0&oe=5A450F19)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Phoenix on October 04, 2017, 06:54:09 AM
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 04, 2017, 09:52:49 AM
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.

They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Phoenix on October 04, 2017, 10:07:11 AM
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.

They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
Yeah I've lived in several states. It gets confusing down there. :laugh:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 04, 2017, 10:27:40 AM
I will admit my bias against guns except under well regulated situations.  My my great grandfather shot himself and the effects were still to be found with my mother (and probably me).  We have a standing military, state police, local police, security guards, etc.  It's a shame they're not effective.  I do realize that if a gun isn't handy a frying pan, knife, strangulation will do in the heat of a domestic argument.  But I have the impossible wish that killing would stop.
   
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Icequeen on October 04, 2017, 12:07:26 PM
I don't understand the gun laws in the US at all. We have reasonable laws in Canada which allow people to own guns but more restrictions on who can carry. We don't have conceal/carry or open/carry here for the general population.

They also vary a bit by state which makes it more interesting.
Yeah I've lived in several states. It gets confusing down there. :laugh:

In Pa owning a gun is perfectly legal, a permit to carry is easy to obtain...but potentially non-lethal brass knuckles and tasers are illegal.   :zoinks:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:20:58 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.

First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.

Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?

I could go on.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:22:01 PM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies?  :dunno:

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:22:40 PM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22089369_1746936788714132_4447231473543275308_n.jpg?oh=aec9772be13e84a244b543ef39e764b0&oe=5A450F19)

+
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:23:51 PM
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.

Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?

You continue your attempt to shift the goalposts and misdirect.

You started this thread by claiming to speak for the rest of the world when you clearly don't.

That was just a pissweak attempt at triangulation and I called you out on it.

Now that this has been established, do you have a point? or a question?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:24:41 PM
I will admit my bias against guns except under well regulated situations.  My my great grandfather shot himself and the effects were still to be found with my mother (and probably me).  We have a standing military, state police, local police, security guards, etc.  It's a shame they're not effective.  I do realize that if a gun isn't handy a frying pan, knife, strangulation will do in the heat of a domestic argument.  But I have the impossible wish that killing would stop.
 

It does make sense, doesn't it? Make it harder to get a gun and people will have to make do with what they have. Can you imagine what happened in Las Vegas carried out with a frying pan?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:25:02 PM
Gun sales/stocks will go up ten-fold now, and people will be waiting in line and buying ammo like pez. Always happens after something like this.

Some nutter does something like this here and everybody panics and starts stocking up like they're going to discontinue their favorite flavor of soda pop.

They can ban guns right now and honestly it still would take 20 years to probably see any effect, because every gun owner from here to California is going to be hiding and stockpiling anything they can get their hands on. First few years will probably work as well as prohibition did...and that's if after 8 years a new administration doesn't come in financially backed to the teeth by some gun organization/company and change the rules back again. :P

QFT
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:27:08 PM
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

You know fuckall about the 2nd amendment.

In order to understand it, you need to read the Federalist Papers, which you haven't and I have.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:29:47 PM
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Again, you know fuckall about the US constitution.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:30:03 PM
I'm not deflecting and I'm not projecting,

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt, you know.

Do you? You're deflecting. Is the right to carry a gun so important to you?

You continue your attempt to shift the goalposts and misdirect.

You started this thread by claiming to speak for the rest of the world when you clearly don't.

That was just a pissweak attempt at triangulation and I called you out on it.

Now that this has been established, do you have a point? or a question?

Dear idiot, I know you love your guns above anything and everything, but you are deflecting, again. People die because of morons like you. When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility? Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

Fucking weak.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:31:15 PM
I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

You know fuckall about the 2nd amendment.

In order to understand it, you need to read the Federalist Papers, which you haven't and I have.

I don't think I misunderstood. I think you're hiding behind it.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:31:50 PM
First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Again, you know fuckall about the US constitution.

Quote it. Tell me where I'm wrong.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:33:09 PM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies?  :dunno:

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:36:30 PM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies?  :dunno:

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

:LMAO:

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 04, 2017, 01:37:48 PM
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:40:44 PM
People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

Quote
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Quote
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:42:38 PM
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

:LMAO:

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.

Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.

I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.

At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.

The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Gopher Gary on October 04, 2017, 04:40:24 PM
Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too.  :zoinks:

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies?  :dunno:

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

I think practice is a good idea if someone is going to be a gun owner.  :lol1:  Anyway, I thought you were asking about both competitive marksmanship and racing. I think I'll stick with my trophy theory.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 04, 2017, 05:09:34 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.

First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.

Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?

I could go on.


These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Which is what I was responding to.

I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.

I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 04, 2017, 05:32:54 PM
^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.

I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 12:09:31 AM
People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

Quote
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Quote
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.

Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.

I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?

And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 12:10:50 AM
Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

:LMAO:

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.

Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.

I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.

At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.

Are you being deliberately dense?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 12:13:56 AM
What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.

The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.

How's that working out for you so far?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 12:16:28 AM
^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.

I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.

Ah, yes, that is what I proposed. Your stupidity knows no boundaries.

And you keep deflecting. Anything but your precious guns. Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 12:21:15 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.

First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.

Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?

I could go on.


These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Which is what I was responding to.

I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.

I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.

I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 03:36:12 AM
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 05, 2017, 05:37:31 AM
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns.  (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 06:21:10 AM
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns.  (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.

Typical leftist regressive race-baiting tripe.   :finger:   :minusevil:

This is the type of straw-man argument parroted by non-thinking pod people.

(http://stevetobak.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 05, 2017, 08:28:28 AM
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns.  (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.

Respectfully, Elle, you are a moron and ideologically off your rocker.

What exactly am I infected by? Yes, yes you ran through an imagined group collective mentality for enforcing a set of views you say they do on the basis they are white, Christians and males.

So we have this right, the people that would want to defend gun rights in America are White American Evangelical Christians? Well, what do you have to fear then? IF this IS true, then only 25% of America is Evangelical. Of that, you specifically said only men (I know you only point to men because you are a sexist but it works in making my point) so we will say that 25% is down by 51% to 12.25% but then you also stipulated that they had to be white (Because you are trying to make the ridiculous Progressive stack argument that white men are the font of all evil, because you are a bigot) so we will need to take into account the evangelists in America that are not white, so we are down to maybe 9% - 10%.

So genius, that is the first problem with what you said. IF it was just this block and 90% of Americans had different views, this block of people would be negligible. It is not though, and you know that. This clusterfuck of ideals is simply what YOUR founding Fathers (despicable white men, I am sure BUT the ones who paved the way for every privilege you enjoy in your life and everything you hold dear) set down in their experiment called America. So people who respect these founding principles that are protected under the constitution are not women hating, fetus loving, racists and only the stupidest of the stupid would even infer this. You did though.

I would actually like you to make some rudimentary attempt to make a case for 

Quote
(Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

applying to all white male evangelist Christians.

You could not even clear the lowest bar on intellectual discourse here, God only knows why you commented?

Lastly, what I said and what I am apparently infected by. Well, what exactly did I say that got you fired up about? Odeon put it about that it should be easy for guns to be removed from America. I asked exactly how this could happen given all the cultural factors, resistance to Government interference and wide availability and a small thing about Constitutional protections. He did not have an answer and pivoted away to other measures which seemed a lot more reasonable and less extreme. I bought him back to his initial statement and now in YOU come with your textual vomit.

The truth of the matter is "Someone should do something" is virtue signalling and nothing more. Saying "all guns are bad" or " Guns are killing you, take them away" is stupid. At the end of the day the rational will look at ways to approach and meet in the middle.

The problem seems to me that the Left do what both you and Odeon seem to be doing and the Right gets mighty attached to their constitution and goes all "from my cold dead hands" on the foaming mouthed Liberals. Both are decidedly unhelpful. The Left, unfortunately, makes no qualms about it saying that it wants to restrict and keep restricting guns and will do away with them entirely if given the chance which gives the Right the impression that they do not care about the Second Amendment at all. The Right is of course correct. The Right does not want the Left to use any concession as a thin end of the wedge to petition for more and more restrictions, which the Right and Left know they absolutely will.

What they need is open forum and some reasonable idea and discuss what would be acceptable. Clearly, guns have evolved since the 1700's. Being able to hunt or defend your home via the Castle Doctrine or defend yourself from a tyrannical government does not seem to mean you should have the ability to unload round after round uninterrupted for 5 minutes, spraying hundreds of rounds. However, the ability to hunt and defend yourself means you need to be able to have access to weapons to do this. Restricting people to have only Matchlock rifles, for example, is not a solution.

In the same way that there are speed limits decided and drinking limits decided and so on means that there is likely to be things that could be agreed on by most people IF they only let the conversion not get sidetracked with emotional responses and bigotry and virtue signalling "outrage".

Oh and Elle, you will have to make a case for me having the sexist, religious, racist ideal you presume people of this presumed clusterfuck of ideals have
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 05, 2017, 09:09:28 AM
Just to let you ALL know I am doing my part to keep America safe:

The PR

Has the intellect of an eight or nine year old
Has the emotional age of a six year old
Has been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression
Has unpredictable rages
Has threatened violence against certain people


I have not told her she is legally able to buy a gun in Louisiana. 

You are welcome.

P.S.  This is a sincere post.  I'll not reply to any responses positive or negative.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 10:03:24 AM
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.

I'd vote for those politicians that will actually act on stricter gun control. That is how democracy should work.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 10:04:48 AM
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns.  (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.

"Clusterfuck" describes the situation well.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 10:08:19 AM
Typical leftist regressive race-baiting tripe.   :finger:   :minusevil:

This is the type of straw-man argument parroted by non-thinking pod people.

As opposed to yours? You're not worth my time.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 01:31:22 PM
I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?
Some of it's that it's been culturally packaged into the same clusterfuck of ideals as white american evangelical christianity and masculinity- the idea that real men love god, their country, and their guns.  (Also, they kind of hate women, kind of love fetuses, healthcare is something only dirty commies want to have be affordable, and foreigners and non-foreign brown and black people are ruining everything, as is every poor person they don't personally know.)

Don't know why the fuck sir les is infected with that that, he's halfway across the fucking planet.

Respectfully, Elle, you are a moron and ideologically off your rocker...

...Oh and Elle, you will have to make a case for me having the sexist, religious, racist ideal you presume people of this presumed clusterfuck of ideals have

Al, 1) I doubt she is going to read and respond to something this long. 2) Elle seems to be projecting in regards to being ideologically possessed. As we know, SJW's are pod people who parrot the party line.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 05, 2017, 01:50:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBQcpRE4JS8&list=PL0hKMB1-xkc-XWNf9VL-LxVYysdHpjyMF&index=2
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 04:09:01 PM
Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.
Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.

I'd vote for those politicians that will actually act on stricter gun control. That is how democracy should work.
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 04:23:09 PM
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.

Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).


Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 04:26:34 PM
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.

Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 04:28:05 PM
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.

Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.

That's fucked up. They have a right to self defense too.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 04:35:43 PM
But they don't. There were eight years of the Obama administration and they only bothered to target disabled people with an executive order at the last minute while walking out the door.

Sad part is, that's the only "gun control" that makes sense, keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental illnesses that would likely use them(schizophrenics and the like).
There are already poorly enforced laws against mentally ill people. What Obama did was try to specifically target people who don't personally manage their own disability income.

That's fucked up. They have a right to self defense too.
It's one of the fist things the new congress voted to squash. This is what I had to say about it at the time.

It's not really a stupid question, but more of a matter of stupid unnecessary rules. Let's stop disabled people who don't manage their own benefit income from buying guns because that's a real problem, right? There are ways the federal government could strengthen gun control without imposing on the constitution or needlessly targeting individual groups. For example, license/permits and safety training courses, which are already required for concealed arms; similar to driver's licenses that process excludes people without making specific laws against them. There's also no need for federal laws against blind people driving cars.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 05, 2017, 06:13:26 PM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 05, 2017, 06:17:30 PM
(http://images2.onionstatic.com/onion/2648/4/original/800.jpg)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 06:30:42 PM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)
The US used to have a federal assault rifle ban, signed into law by Bill Clinton and lasting ten years. It expired during the Obama administration. Not sure why renewal never made it beyond the legislative committee to be pretended for congressional vote. Congress renewing an existing ten year old law seems highly plausible. It's as if it were allowed to die.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 06:44:11 PM
It expired during the Obama administration.
Correction. It was during the George W Bush administration.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 07:00:54 PM
I'm not sure who PMS Elle is trying to convince with her propaganda, us or herself.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 07:05:37 PM
I'm not sure who PMS Elle is trying to convince with her propaganda, us or herself.
It was unexpected.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 07:49:58 PM
https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/04/a-statistician-reconsiders-her-support-f
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 09:18:14 PM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)

Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934. But don't let fact get in the way of your propaganda PMS Elle!   :thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 05, 2017, 09:45:59 PM
Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934.
That's a valid point and the federal assault weapons ban of the 90s was directed at semi-automatics that have a certain appearance, essentially guns that 'look' like assault weapons are now considered to be assault weapons. Though the more pertinent aspect of that particular law is it included a ban on high capacity ammunition feeds and magazines.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 05, 2017, 10:25:25 PM
Assault riffles have been banned since before they even existed, in 1934.
That's a valid point and the federal assault weapons ban of the 90s was directed at semi-automatics that have a certain appearance, essentially guns that 'look' like assault weapons are now considered to be assault weapons. Though the more pertinent aspect of that particular law is it included a ban on high capacity ammunition feeds and magazines.

"Assault weapons" is a fictitious category.

Assault rifles are an actual category of guns first developed in WWII with the German MP-43. It fired a lower powered rifle round and was capable of semi-auto or full auto fire. That's the definition of an assault rifle, it must be capable of firing more than one round with each pull of the trigger.

Such firearms have needed a class 3 firearms license to own since 1934.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 06, 2017, 12:21:56 AM
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Some_Bloke on October 06, 2017, 05:29:07 AM
People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

Quote
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Quote
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.

Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.

I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?

And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.

I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit on restrictions.  :dunno:

Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.

That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.

What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.

This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die.  :thumbup:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 06, 2017, 05:33:09 AM
I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit of restrictions.  :dunno:

Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.

That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.

What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.

This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die.  :thumbup:
Exactly- all of it, but especially the emphasized part.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Some_Bloke on October 06, 2017, 05:54:25 AM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)

Parts of the UK (but especially London) have a big problem with knife crime, which is an argument pro-gun folks tend to throw around quite a lot, and with the two recent attacks in London this year they tend to bring those up too.
To me it's about a difference in the damage that can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
Deaths: 6 (including the fucker that did it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack
Deaths: 11 (including the fuckers that did it)

Whereas here's a terrorist attack that used guns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
Deaths: 49

And as I've brought it up before, here's Sandy Hook again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Deaths: 28 (including Lanza's mother)

The fuckers in London, on both occasions used knives and a truck, and yet with the two combined attacks they still killed less people than Lanza. If he'd walked into that school with a few knives (instead of the guns he shouldn't have had access to due to being fucking insane) a lot less people would have been killed.

Schools in America (and even some in the UK) have lockdown procedures in case nutters break in to the school. I remember in my college we had something similar because some mad, drunk bastards had ran in. We just stayed in locked rooms and waited for the police. If those men had guns, well I wouldn't be writing this shit.

If they had knives, I'd still be writing this shit though. The lockdown would have held and I would have been okay so long as I followed instructions.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 06:20:48 AM
People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

Quote
When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Quote
Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.

Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.

I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?

And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.

I think after Sandy Hook I gave up any hope that the gun laws would change at all. Gun nuts and NRA fuckwits would prefer dead kids over budging just a bit on restrictions.  :dunno:

Of course, removing or banning the guns outright is a terrible idea. That might work somewhere like the UK or France but guns have probably been a part of American culture since before they dumped the tea in the harbour. There is a firearm for at least every three people. People will resist their guns being taken away and there will be even more bloodshed.

That, and the black market's a thing. It would be like prohibition but with bullets rather than booze, which wouldn't be good for anyone except the next Al Capone.

What sane people want (and what NRA fuckwits and gun nuts can't seem to understand) is restrictions on the type of firearms and who can have them. Of course, that's too much and said nuts and fuckwits would rather have entire schools full of dead children instead.

This debate will never truly die, but I can assure you that plenty of people will die.  :thumbup:

The problem I see, is that anything like this happens and what does the Left do....pretty much to a person?:

1. They accuse the Right of being unfeeling monsters
2. They make sweeping statements of needing to take away all guns
3. They climb onto intellectual soapboxes and moral high horses to preach their superiority
4. They push to railroad and steamroll the Right

The Right in return:

1. They shut down ALL discussion on gun control or restriction
2. Phrases like "Out of my cold dead hands" creeps into the discourse
3. They dismiss ALL Liberal arguments
4. They push back against any efforts to railroad them or steamroll them.

What is the end result?

See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.

There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 06:22:22 AM
(https://scontent.fbos1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22308652_1909160139344878_5172262103318434776_n.jpg?oh=c114d5bce57d75847fc87904e55da29e&oe=5A447C0B)

Parts of the UK (but especially London) have a big problem with knife crime, which is an argument pro-gun folks tend to throw around quite a lot, and with the two recent attacks in London this year they tend to bring those up too.
To me it's about a difference in the damage that can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Westminster_attack
Deaths: 6 (including the fucker that did it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack
Deaths: 11 (including the fuckers that did it)

Whereas here's a terrorist attack that used guns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting
Deaths: 49

And as I've brought it up before, here's Sandy Hook again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
Deaths: 28 (including Lanza's mother)

The fuckers in London, on both occasions used knives and a truck, and yet with the two combined attacks they still killed less people than Lanza. If he'd walked into that school with a few knives (instead of the guns he shouldn't have had access to due to being fucking insane) a lot less people would have been killed.

Schools in America (and even some in the UK) have lockdown procedures in case nutters break in to the school. I remember in my college we had something similar because some mad, drunk bastards had ran in. We just stayed in locked rooms and waited for the police. If those men had guns, well I wouldn't be writing this shit.

If they had knives, I'd still be writing this shit though. The lockdown would have held and I would have been okay so long as I followed instructions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

86 Deaths
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Some_Bloke on October 06, 2017, 06:30:35 AM
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.

There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".

Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.

I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.

However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 06:44:10 AM
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.

There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".

Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.

I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.

However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue.  :dunno:

Yeah, that is fair enough too.

I think the idea of having a gun for protection if someone comes to attack you in your home, in principle is not a terrible idea. BUT I see no reason you would need to be able to empty 200 rounds into them in one minute. Some with hunting. Having a rifle high powered enough to take down a large animal and to be able to let off a half a dozen rounds before they get away seems to make sense but filling the creature with 50 rounds seems excessive.

So I think there is a middle ground. There could be some reaching across the aisle but people get emotional and dig their heels in and the ones who are "sane" drift over to the cemented positions.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Some_Bloke on October 06, 2017, 06:56:09 AM
See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.

There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".

Hence why I didn't say Leftists were pushing for restrictions but "sane people", the left has just as many loonies as the right and I've actually talked to some people who consider themselves pro-guns who would be alright with some restrictions. I'm on the left (Jeremy Corbyn fan) and although I'm not the sanest person even I recognise that banning the guns is a fucking terrible idea.

I said "gun nuts and NRA fuckwits" rather than just referring to gun owners in general, although I can see why someone might think when I use those terms it's a sweeping statement on gun owners in general. It's not, I know some gun owners who are decent folks and like I said would be alright with some decent restrictions.

However, I still don't think there will be any budging when it comes to this issue.  :dunno:

Yeah, that is fair enough too.

I think the idea of having a gun for protection if someone comes to attack you in your home, in principle is not a terrible idea. BUT I see no reason you would need to be able to empty 200 rounds into them in one minute. Some with hunting. Having a rifle high powered enough to take down a large animal and to be able to let off a half a dozen rounds before they get away seems to make sense but filling the creature with 50 rounds seems excessive.

So I think there is a middle ground. There could be some reaching across the aisle but people get emotional and dig their heels in and the ones who are "sane" drift over to the cemented positions.

Fuckin', hell, I get emotional over this and it's not even my country. After Sandy Hook, I sort of became numb to mass shootings and the like, there'd be reports of one on TV and I'd shrug and say "Another one? For fuck's sake."

Same with terrorist attacks. Manchester was the last one in the UK to get to me, and before that it was the one in March but then again I was in London the day it happened. Whenever children get killed in some war or in an attack by fuckwits due to religious or other cuntish reasons I tend to lose my shit.  :dunno:

The Florida one struck a cord with me for obvious reasons, being a big gay poofter and all but that's a whole other topic.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Fun with matches on October 06, 2017, 07:27:37 AM
The problem I see, is that anything like this happens and what does the Left do....pretty much to a person?:

1. They accuse the Right of being unfeeling monsters
2. They make sweeping statements of needing to take away all guns
3. They climb onto intellectual soapboxes and moral high horses to preach their superiority
4. They push to railroad and steamroll the Right

The Right in return:

1. They shut down ALL discussion on gun control or restriction
2. Phrases like "Out of my cold dead hands" creeps into the discourse
3. They dismiss ALL Liberal arguments
4. They push back against any efforts to railroad them or steamroll them.

What is the end result?

See the Right know the Left will not stop until the Second Amendment is in tatters and they do not trust that the Left will compromise and let it go at that. They feel IF they give away or make concessions, it will never stop. They will be feeding a starving beast that will never be sated.

There are those on the Right who are dyed in the wool gun nuts too, but I think there are enough people that if not "forced" to take a hard side would actually say "Yeah, we could probably stop selling guns that can (or can be modified to) shoot x number of rounds a second" or whatever. I think that there is enough middle ground for compromise. But when the Left smears the Right and talks down to them and tries to ride roughshod over them whilst threatening to diminish the constitution, the Right becomes dug in and both sides are polarised. Nothing gets done because there is no points of commonality between "You all are monsters who love dead kids" and "Come try and take my guns in person".

I agree with this.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 06, 2017, 07:38:29 AM
By the way, if anyone with whom there seems to be a snowball's chance in hell of actually having a dialogue with wants to know how I feel about the specifics of all this, feel free to ask.  I feel right now like it'd be wasted time and effort to get into.  I'm not looking to outlaw all guns- I was fucking literally making plans to go shooting with a couple of friends a week ago as of today (and yes, I have my FID). 

However (and the following paragraphs are the very broad version), I see no goddamn reason that we shouldn't have more restrictions on gun ownership (my state had a decent set of common sense restrictions, anyway).  That wouldn't have stopped this guy, but maybe it'll stop the next one.  I also see no goddamn good reason (as stated by other people here) for people to have access to the level of sophistication and deadliness in weaponry that gun nuts (not sane gun owners, but the actual nuts) seem to want.  Before the shooting, we were going to consider making silencers legal, ffs.  Why the actual fuck do we need those, exactly?  And silencers WOULD have made this last shooting a hell of a lot worse.

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

I also think the NRA flooding politics and culture with dirty money plays a huge role.  Libertarians like to say follow the money (and I think that's valid and wise in general).  The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 07:57:15 AM
By the way, if anyone with whom there seems to be a snowball's chance in hell of actually having a dialogue with wants to know how I feel about the specifics of all this, feel free to ask.  I feel right now like it'd be wasted time and effort to get into.  I'm not looking to outlaw all guns- I was fucking literally making plans to go shooting with a couple of friends a week ago as of today (and yes, I have my FID). 

However (and the following paragraphs are the very broad version), I see no goddamn reason that we shouldn't have more restrictions on gun ownership (my state had a decent set of common sense restrictions, anyway).  That wouldn't have stopped this guy, but maybe it'll stop the next one.  I also see no goddamn good reason (as stated by other people here) for people to have access to the level of sophistication and deadliness in weaponry that gun nuts (not sane gun owners, but the actual nuts) seem to want.  Before the shooting, we were going to consider making silencers legal, ffs.  Why the actual fuck do we need those, exactly?  And silencers WOULD have made this last shooting a hell of a lot worse.

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

I also think the NRA flooding politics and culture with dirty money plays a huge role.  Libertarians like to say follow the money (and I think that's valid and wise in general).  The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.

What is the reduction in noise of a silencer? Do you know? Do you know whether or not it would not still have sounded like firecrackers going off? Do silencers make a possible ear damaging noise out of ear-damaging range BUT still very loud range? Apparently, this is the case and so the knock-on effect is that it would have likely made not a single difference despite being claimed unequivocably by Hillary Clinton.

Why exactly is toxic masculinity? How does it differ from toxic feminity? How does a male become toxic or are they all born toxic? Is it like original sin? You seemed to suggest previously that men who were Christian and Evangelical Christians (oh and white) meant that they were masculine then ascribed them loving guns, God and the country as meaning they hated women and were racist. So I guess THAT is toxic masculinity and stems from them being Christian and white men? I am sure you can spell this all out, you are the one with a degree in applicable social sciences. You must know the human condition and what makes people tick...right? You are the one with these answers.

The NRA will absolutely benefit when gun sales are made. Now are you suggesting that they sponsored Stephen Paddock? You aren't are you? As for dirty money in politics. It is absolutely true that the NRA will have more support for the GOP who has more support in them. NRA paid about $6 million to the GOP last year. Similarly, Planned Parenting for similar reasons has more support with the Democrats and they paid $38 million to the DNC. But what exactly is the point?

Hell, that argument is like saying that shrinks will do a piss poor job in deliberately reading people so that the person is never truly much better and always dependent. That they will do a job just good enough to get an appointment the next week but bad enough that they are never cured or removed from their illness or condition. Creating a dependence to make them money.

I think such conspiracy theory arguments are usually stupid. Not all though.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: FourAceDeal on October 06, 2017, 08:01:33 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

Dear Kek,

odeon is speaking for us.

Regards
the Rest of the World.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 08:04:04 AM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

Dear Kek,

odeon is speaking for us.

Regards
the Rest of the World.

No Odeon is speaking for Odeon and You agree with Odeon. Only an idiot would imply that is the same as Odeon speaking for the rest of the world.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: FourAceDeal on October 06, 2017, 08:11:22 AM
You're completely correct Al.  odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: FourAceDeal on October 06, 2017, 08:13:06 AM
Can someone point me towards a report of a mass shooting that has been stopped by privately owned assault rifles in the hands of a "citizen"?

I'm asking for a friend.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 08:37:33 AM
You're completely correct Al.  odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.

No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.

People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.

Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 06, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
This appeared in the Times-Picayune today.  Thoughtful.

American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion           By Robert Mann, Columnist

The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:

Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.

On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.

After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.

When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.

A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.

After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.

In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.

Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.

Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.

After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.

If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: FourAceDeal on October 06, 2017, 09:06:09 AM
You're completely correct Al.  odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.

No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.

People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.

Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.

Eventually the mass of evidence and proof renders an opinion a matter of fact.  You're just behind the fucking curve.

There are people who think that their invisible friend made the earth 8000 years ago.  That's not an opinion.  They are simply incorrect.  And funnily enough they are also a subgroup of the gun lobby.  Go figure.

You need cold hard facts to justify an opinion.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: FourAceDeal on October 06, 2017, 09:06:56 AM
Please post those NRA sourced "statistics.  I find them so hilarious.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 09:30:16 AM
You're completely correct Al.  odeon doesn't speak for North Korea or certain parts of Syria and Somalia, but he does speak for the majorities in most countries of the world.

No, he really does not. Neither do you and only a moron would imagine that there is a shared consciousness between Odeon and the people of the world as a whole. Flattering in a really greasy brown-nosing way and all, FourAce but simply not true.

People throughout the world will have a variety of opinions about a variety of things. There is not an "Odeon's thoughts and North Korea". That is what we call, batshit crazy.

Even if we look at the gun debate in isolation, you will see in this thread varying degrees of agreement and disagreement. You will likely find that when you times these interactions over billions of people, the variety and diversity of opinion will be vast.

Eventually the mass of evidence and proof renders an opinion a matter of fact.  You're just behind the fucking curve.

There are people who think that their invisible friend made the earth 8000 years ago.  That's not an opinion.  They are simply incorrect.  And funnily enough they are also a subgroup of the gun lobby.  Go figure.

You need cold hard facts to justify an opinion.

Mass of evidence at this point seems to be that the world thinks the same thoughts as Odeon except for Almighty Kek (and perhaps North Korea, Syria, Somalia and maybe America?) of which you cite NO evidence.

Odeon thinks Odeon's thoughts in Odeon's head. Without looking at the merits of any individual thought and what nuances he has on such thoughts, it is difficult without certainty to say whether ANYONE thinks EXACTLY the same thing as he does and to the same degree and for the same reasons and in the same way and with all the same nuance and from the same experience and so on. Likely not.

The fact that you imagine that his thoughts, in general, would be the same as the rest of the world is....well, it is kind of special.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 06, 2017, 03:22:23 PM
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 06, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 06, 2017, 05:33:00 PM
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 06, 2017, 07:23:34 PM
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.

You're not offering solutions, just police state tyranny.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment will just result in civil war.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 06, 2017, 07:30:14 PM
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.

Quote
The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.

The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 06, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

You don't speak on behalf of the rest of the world.   :finger:

Dear Kek,

odeon is speaking for us.

Regards
the Rest of the World.

You don't represent the rest of the world either, just the lefty echo chambers you inhabit.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 08:00:19 PM
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P

Yup, I am in very good company here. :) (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 06, 2017, 08:10:18 PM
This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).

(https://i.redd.it/mqvhts7c2aqz.png)

This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 07, 2017, 01:14:12 AM
Yes, we can tell that you're a spazz. :P

Yup, I am in very good company here. :) (It has been a long time that anything you wrote actually got me laughing with you)

I'm glad because it was actually meant that way. :)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 07, 2017, 01:26:36 AM
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?

It wasn't aimed at you.

I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.

It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.

Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 07, 2017, 01:27:06 AM
I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings, and I woudln't be surprised if it played a role in that one.  Don't believe me, look at the fucking gender breakdown of who commits mass shootings.  Something's up there- and I do think part of it is also part of the cancer that's fucking my country all up for everyone who isn't a rich white man.

You've been rightfully called out for this one, trying to pathologize an entire gender and race.

Quote
The NRA fucking profits off of these mass shootings, because the debate about gun laws comes up, people panic, and stockpile more guns.  They have too many politicians in their pockets, and they literally profit from murder.  I defy anyone to come up with a reason that THAT isn't a problem.

The NRA isn't a gun retailer you fuckwit!

No, it's a terror organisation. :orly:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 07, 2017, 01:36:17 AM
This is interesting. I personally do not think the acts restricted as much as all that BUT I absolutely understand that this is exactly what Conservatives feel and rightly so. Progressives are NOT prepared to stop until the only people with any guns are the military and the police (then see what they do in forming the militia and defending themselves against a tyrannical government or defending their homes or hunting).

(https://i.redd.it/mqvhts7c2aqz.png)

This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.

I think this misses the point completely. All we see here is an abstraction of restrictions placed on guns but no discussion whatsoever about why they need to happen. It's an extremely one-sided view.

QV's recent post illustrates just how unreasonable this view is:

This appeared in the Times-Picayune today.  Thoughtful.

American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion           By Robert Mann, Columnist

The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:

Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.

On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.

After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.

When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.

A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.

After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.

In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.

Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.

Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.

After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.

If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.

Where is the will to act here? Why, in this day and age, are we even having this discussion?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 07, 2017, 02:01:28 AM
Actually whilst this has been happening and I have been saying that between "come and try and take my guns from my cold dead hands" and "Ban all guns and if you do not agree with me you are complicit in murder of children", is some room for negotiation and that it is entirely possible for the respect of hunting, the castle doctrine and the ability for lawful citizens to have arms in case of a tyrannical government, whilst appreciating none of this needs weapons to be able to unleash hundreds of rounds a minute.

So I am interested in seeing the conversation around bump stocks coming out of this. This is the middle ground and compromise.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 07, 2017, 04:51:42 AM
I love it how you split hairs rather than discuss what to do about the problem. This is just wrong.
Was this aimed at me too?  You are correct, what to do is to elect the people who do. Gun control ranks high on the list of expectations when there's a democrat elected and appointed administration in the white house. There were over seventy mass shootings that took place during the Obama administration. The only new gun law that was enacted during eight years of democrat party rule, is a law which protects manufacturers and dealers from liability suits when people commit crimes with their product. With mass shootings come an inundation of calls, letters, emails, and petitions, demanding for leaders who can do something to do. People are in fact outraged, the do in fact speak out, but this time the difference is, it's not expected for a republican administration to push the topic of stricter gun control. Really, what's to discuss other than hairs?

It wasn't aimed at you.

I think what needs to change first is a mindset. There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk and what was intended back then and if it is, or ever was, useful. Kill your darlings, as they say in the film business.

It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership, no matter how much the NRA spins it, and it was written at a time when hundreds of rounds per minute was a nutcase's pipe dream and equipping both sides with muskets would set a level playing field.

Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.
The mindset of the vast majority of citizens is open to stricter regulations for obtaining/operating guns and ammunition feeds. Don't think the constitution is a piece of junk, but do think it's irrelevant to the discussion of this mindset because the constitution simply isn't affected by certain types of regulation. It possible to embrace both without embracing the deaths of mass shootings. I don't get to vote on silencers, or any federal regulation for that matter, so not sure of the point in saying something like that to me. It either implies condescension or a lack of understanding for the civics behind the discussion, but not sure which so will take a wait and see approach to responding.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 07, 2017, 05:35:28 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 07, 2017, 06:08:20 AM
This is not to say that the Left has no decent points or that some alterations or restrictions are not a good idea, I think they are BUT I CAN see why Conservatives feel they get little out of it and their reluctance.
The cake analogy is a bad one, because it's hardly as if citizens have only a sliver of the gun rights of the people of 1934. Don't even think it's about getting anything out of it. 911 and the so-called war on terror resulted in the NSA and the Patriot Act, and thus a number of new rights for the government along with restrictions on the population. There's no foundation that grants citizens any rights under these changes, so there's definitely a section of the population who feel their freedoms are under attack in the name of safety, and so balk when there actually is a foundation which grants them the right to not be treated under the assumption of being a criminal.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: 'andersom' on October 07, 2017, 06:36:36 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.

I noticed you did not get any response on this. It is a curious event, not getting any reaction on that statement.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 07, 2017, 08:24:09 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.

I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.

Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.

I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 07, 2017, 09:01:22 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.

I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.

Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.

I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Queen Victoria on October 07, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
This appeared in the Times-Picayune today.  Thoughtful.

American can-do vanishes when the NRA check arrives | Opinion           By Robert Mann, Columnist

The instinct is common; the pattern is clear: When people die in accidents or from defective or faulty products, Americans are quick to assess the problem and work to prevent it from happening again. For instance:

Whenever a commercial airliner crashes and kills hundreds of people, we determine the cause and work to prevent similar occurrences. That's why airlines are the world's safest mode of travel.

On American highways, cars often cross medians and strike oncoming traffic. That's why many states, including Louisiana, erect barriers to prevent future crashes.

After decades during which more than 40,000 -- sometimes 50,000 -- people died annually on our highways, federal law in 1968 required automakers to install seat belts in new cars. By 1998, the government also mandated airbags in all new automobiles.

When someone tainted bottles of Tylenol with potassium cyanide in 1981, killing seven people in the Chicago area, it sparked a revolution in the packaging of over-the-counter medication and resulted in the 1983 Federal Anti-Tampering Act.

Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government dramatically increased security at airports and on airplanes.

A would-be shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane on a flight from Paris to Miami in 2001. Today, most U.S. passengers cannot board a commercial jet without removing their shoes.

After 32 infants died in drop-down cribs from 2000 to 2010, the federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) banned the manufacture, sale and resale of such cribs.

In the 1980s, more than 6,000 people were injured in lawn dart accidents. In 1982, an errant dart killed a 7-year-old child in California. By 1988, the CPSC banned them in the United States.

Thousands of children once opened medicine bottles and died or became ill after they ingested the contents. Today, child-resistant caps are used for almost all medicine bottles and many other products, such as pesticides and other household chemicals.

Several dozen people, including children, died each year after being locked inside the trunks of cars. In 2001, the federal government required that all new passenger vehicles with trunks must be equipped with an interior release latch.

After scientists proved that second-hand cigarette smoke causes a range of health problems, the tobacco companies fought efforts to ban smoking in offices and restaurants. In spite of Big Tobacco's lobbying against it, many states and hundreds of cities have banned smoking in public places.

If it's a car accident, plane crash, deadly drug interaction, animal attack or botched hurricane recovery, we summon our outrage, muster our courage and dive into doing whatever it takes to eliminate or reduce the threat.

My major boo-boo.  Because of ads placed on the on-line paper I missed the rest of the opinion.  FWIW here is the rest (which I haven't read.  So sue me.)

There is one notable, scandalous exception.

Gun violence is the manner of death Americans seem willing to ignore. We meet other ways of dying with indignation and determination. But gun deaths? We shrug our shoulders, bow our heads and send a few thoughts and prayers to the victims. We mourn a few days before we move on, afraid to do what it would take to prevent future tragedies.

Why is that? What is it about guns that leaves us weak and our leaders feckless?

Perhaps it's the false choices the gun lobby brandishes to brainwash its members. The National Rifle Association (NRA) meets any effort to inject sanity into our gun laws with the same refrain: They are trying to take away your firearms.

The truth is Barack Obama was a boon to the NRA, which used the phony threat of gun seizures to increase its membership and for the manufacturers, who used it to sell more firearms and ammo.

The specter of gun confiscation is difficult to dispel because it's so irrational. Almost no one proposes to take away guns from law-abiding citizens.

Many meaningful, sensible gun-violence-control measures enjoy widespread public support, including universal background checks, preventing sales to mentally ill people, closing the private-sale loophole, mandatory safety features, outlawing cop-killing bullets and regulating the production, sale and ownership of high-velocity weapons designed only to kill as many people as possible.


No matter how reasonable the proposal in the wake of a mass killing, the gun lobby will try to smother it under a blanket of fear and lies.

The NRA has persuaded its members and many politicians that nothing can be done about mass killings. Forget the other tragedies and calamities we have addressed. Stopping gun violence, it seems, is an impossible feat for a great nation that eradicated polio and put men on the moon.

As someone observed on Twitter the other day after a gunman in Las Vegas murdered 59 people and wounded another 527: "American can-do vanishes when the @NRA check arrives."

Robert Mann, an author and former U.S. Senate and gubernatorial staffer, holds the Manship Chair in Journalism at the Manship School of Mass Communication at Louisiana State University. Read more from him at his blog, Something Like the Truth. Follow him on Twitter @RTMannJr or email him at bob.mann@outlook.com.

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 07, 2017, 09:50:41 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.

I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.

Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.

I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.

I am suggesting that the reason people do batshit crazy things is because they are batshit crazy. I am suggesting that with people who are batshit crazy and have high testosterone, this can mean that the way they be batshit crazy is with violent acts.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 07, 2017, 11:31:01 AM
violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.

I think it is a little more than that. Men have more testosterone and more muscel mass, thicker bone density and so on. We are physical beings and even as kids are instinctually driven to the rough and tumble. As a whole and as a generality.

Men, however, are socialised and have the drive to protect women and children. That is why we are collectively appalled when we hear of women being raped or beaten or kids abused by men. Not only have they broken a taboo but they have rebelled against the instinct of using our strength to protect. I consider it on par with eating shit, having sex with corpses or other abhorrent behaviours. The comparison being alike in the way that what we are both socialised and instinctually repelled from would generally mean that NO man would do these things BUT we know some actually do.

I think that high testosterone alone is neither here nor there. High testosterone and mental disorder or something weird going on with them and yeah they suddenly could cross the line to behave in ways that other males do not. I think it is rather they are batshit crazy AND if they have high testosterone then it is more likely that their bad will be something violent.
Defending and protecting people isn't a crime. There's no arguing that men have sociological pressures to be protectors, but if you'd like to discuss sociological pressures of being macho manly then discuss that with Elle. I don't think violent crime is fundamentally sociological. While the number of people who commit violent crimes small and the number of people with high testosterone is also small, there still has been established a correlation for violence with abnormal testosterone levels in both men and women, and society doesn't pressure anyone to be violent criminals. Your statements seem to suggest abnormally high testosterone levels don't make people bat shit crazy.

I am suggesting that the reason people do batshit crazy things is because they are batshit crazy. I am suggesting that with people who are batshit crazy and have high testosterone, this can mean that the way they be batshit crazy is with violent acts.
Thanks.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 07, 2017, 02:28:01 PM
Actually whilst this has been happening and I have been saying that between "come and try and take my guns from my cold dead hands" and "Ban all guns and if you do not agree with me you are complicit in murder of children", is some room for negotiation and that it is entirely possible for the respect of hunting, the castle doctrine and the ability for lawful citizens to have arms in case of a tyrannical government, whilst appreciating none of this needs weapons to be able to unleash hundreds of rounds a minute.

So I am interested in seeing the conversation around bump stocks coming out of this. This is the middle ground and compromise.

The "tyrannical government" thing is an excuse. A bad one at that.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 07, 2017, 07:09:25 PM
I think what needs to change first is a mindset.

Yes, we need to purge the world of wrongthink.   :tard:

Quote
There needs to be a discussion about that 18th century piece of junk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

Quote
It was never intended to be about the individual citizens's gun ownership,

Yes it was, it is clearly stated so in The Federalist Papers WHICH YOU HAVE NOT READ.

Quote
Of course, you can also embrace the fact that every now and then, a few dozen innocent people will die a senseless death. The upside is that your misconceptions will be allowed to remain intact and you can move on to vote about things like allowing silencers in public or whatever the fuck it was that they wanted to do.

Of course you can embrace a totalitarian police state that has the power to confiscate millions of guns deemed "too dangerous" by smug, pompous twits like odious. The upside is that your misconceptions about an authoritarian nanny state will be allowed to remain intact and you can vote about things like should the unwashed masses be allowed to watch whatever they want or is state run TV all they need.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 08, 2017, 03:02:13 AM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s). In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).

Take your time.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Gopher Gary on October 08, 2017, 12:57:33 PM
I blame my testosterone levels on the beef and dairy industry.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: benjimanbreeg on October 08, 2017, 01:41:33 PM
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem.  We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet.  We can't ban all of those unfortunately  ::)  There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway.  Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it.  All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya.  We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes. 
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 08, 2017, 02:11:14 PM
Welcome back
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Gopher Gary on October 08, 2017, 07:52:11 PM
You'd have to be a special kind of moron

*Humps Benji's leg*   :zoinks:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 09, 2017, 12:10:24 AM
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem.  We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet.  We can't ban all of those unfortunately  ::)  There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway.  Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it.  All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya.  We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.

Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 09, 2017, 06:08:04 AM
Thing is, any cunt can slaughter masses. If they don't have access to buyable automatic firearms, there are shrapnel-bombs, nerve agents, hell, if somebody so chose, mustard 'gas' (they aren't gases) could be prepared with a trip to a garden center, a DIY store and somewhere to get a car battery charger, if a jihadi wanted to do it from scratch. Or if you want to keep it simple, release a load of arsine gas (the arsenic answer to ammonia, AsH3, rather than NH3) by fusing arsenic with a metal, such as iron perhaps and creating the metal arsenide, and on exposure to acid, this would release the lethally toxic arsine. Stinks something heinous too, like rotting garlic/onion laced with whatever that smell is you get from holding copper coins in your hand for a while, or like rotting leeks mixed with a hint of rust.

Or hell, bet as much if not more damage would be done if a jihadi type were to target the infrastructure of a country, by setting off something like an explosively-pumped magnetic flux compression generator, and doing it close to power plants, using the resulting massive electromagnetic pulse to fry the circuitry of the power plants, and that would go tenfold for a nuclear power plant. Or even simpler, target the plant with a high-powered vircator (a vacuum-tube based microwave pulse generator, at max output and correct design, capable of terawatt-level output)

Country loses power after coordinated attacks of that kind and everything would devolve into mass panic.

And if the terrorists are set on stone-age primitive, just look at the truck attacks in the UK.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 09, 2017, 02:40:52 PM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s).

Here you go Federalist Papers (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers) and if you'd rather read it in Swedish, I imagine the Gothenburg University Library might have a copy.

You can do the same thing I did 20+ years ago and slog through the whole thing to get its meaning in its proper context.

Quote
In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).

:LMAO:

So you'd rather go for the simple minded, cherry picked, quote mined propaganda from a Neo-Marxist propaganda site??  :rofl:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 09, 2017, 02:48:59 PM
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem.  We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet.  We can't ban all of those unfortunately  ::)  There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway.  Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it.  All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya.  We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.

Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?

How many people were killed in that truck attack? 89??
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 09, 2017, 02:55:05 PM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant federalist paper(s).

Here you go Federalist Papers (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers) and if you'd rather read it in Swedish, I imagine the Gothenburg University Library might have a copy.

You can do the same thing I did 20+ years ago and slog through the whole thing to get its meaning in its proper context.

Quote
In the meantime, I'll settle for this (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/1/7/1052523/-).

:LMAO:

So you'd rather go for the simple minded, cherry picked, quote mined propaganda from a Neo-Marxist propaganda site??  :rofl:

Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.

I have to say, though, reading your ramblings and comparing them to some of the more well-considered thoughts out there, I'm not holding my breath. You very much like to call things you disagree with propaganda, neo-Marxist and whatnot, but your actual arguments are non-existent. I think I am right about your approach here--it's all a belief system for you, not something based in rational thought.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 09, 2017, 02:56:46 PM
You'd have to be a special kind of moron to think that just guns were the problem.  We don't have legal guns in the UK but people get killed with knives, bats, bottles, fists and feet.  We can't ban all of those unfortunately  ::)  There needs to be some of sensible licensing I think, and try to meet both sides halfway.  Trouble is, this is very politically motivated even if some are too simple to see it.  All you have to do is see that most Democrats want to ban guns in the US but also like giving guns to organ eating Jihadis in Syria or Libya.  We need to make sure that not just any lunatic can own a load of guns but really must get down to the route causes.

Wanting to stop 59 people being killed and 500+ hurt within minutes is a political problem now? Where is that middle ground? 30 people killed, 250 hurt?

How many people were killed in that truck attack? 89??

You're deflecting. Focus.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 09, 2017, 08:53:07 PM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.

I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.

Quote
I have to say, though, reading your ramblings and comparing them to some of the more well-considered thoughts out there, I'm not holding my breath. You very much like to call things you disagree with propaganda, neo-Marxist and whatnot, but your actual arguments are non-existent. I think I am right about your approach here--it's all a belief system for you, not something based in rational thought.

You're projecting, you're the one who exists in an echo chamber and has no argument.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 10, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.

I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.

In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 10, 2017, 10:25:26 AM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.

I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.

In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.

It's not a single statement, it's several paragraphs. too complicated for you.

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 10, 2017, 11:30:17 AM
Still waiting for you to quote the relevant passages to (attempt to) prove whatever point you thought you had--it's not enough to provide a link to them all.

I'm not your fucking employee, you do the work.

In other words, you don't actually know what to quote.

It's not a single statement, it's several paragraphs. too complicated for you.

Translation: I can't find the bit I googled.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 10, 2017, 12:06:57 PM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: 'andersom' on October 10, 2017, 12:13:30 PM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.

?

Explanation?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 10, 2017, 12:30:26 PM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.

?

Explanation?

There was this period of time when we read these things called books, which were kind of like message boards except they were made out of trees.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: 'andersom' on October 10, 2017, 02:23:04 PM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

BTW, that's 2 counts of Admin abuse.

?

Explanation?

There was this period of time when we read these things called books, which were kind of like message boards except they were made out of trees.

I am aware of the concept of books. I do have a few of them at home. And am in the middle of reading four at the moment. Oh, no, make that five, started reading on regicide yesterday.

But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 10, 2017, 04:06:57 PM
But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
Am guessing it's because Odeon doesn't have time restrictions for changing karma.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 10, 2017, 11:55:12 PM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

Translation: Still deflecting.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: 'andersom' on October 11, 2017, 12:22:56 AM
But I fail to see what books have to do with double admin abuse.
Am guessing it's because Odeon doesn't have time restrictions for changing karma.
Ah, that makes sense.
Maybe he (Odeon) took my question of practice too serious? Easy does it, no hurry. Best things in life take time and such. It's like fine wine and old cheeses. Hurrying them destroys the flavour. Restrain yourself. :P

But it has nothing to do with books.  :M
Maybe Pappy did not understand my question.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 11, 2017, 06:12:06 AM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

Translation: Still deflecting.

Translation: When people figure out my red-herring tactics and don't fall for the distraction, I'll accuse them of deflecting.

BTW, 3 counts of admin abuse.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 11, 2017, 06:26:53 AM
Google didn't exist when I read it.

Translation: Still deflecting.

Translation: When people figure out my red-herring tactics and don't fall for the distraction, I'll accuse them of deflecting.

BTW, 3 counts of admin abuse.

You claim the federalist papers support your views but are unable to produce any quotes when asked to.

Did you understand the question?

Oh, and poor you. Must be terrible to be you.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 11, 2017, 06:27:48 AM
Another two counts of admin abuse.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 11, 2017, 11:29:13 AM
You claim the federalist papers support your views but are unable to produce any quotes when asked to.
[/quote]

And I've given my reasons, which you refuse to accept.

Are you this pig headed, manipulative and controlling with your daughters?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 11, 2017, 11:50:33 PM
Idiot. If you're unable to back up your shit, then shut up.

Also, leave my family out of this.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 12, 2017, 05:55:09 AM
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 12, 2017, 06:13:27 AM
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?

Got a bunch of questions and they are not rhetorical and are in the callout. Saying effectively "you are a bad person and I dislike your personality does not address any point you were called on. Sure as Hell makes no case as to me being anything you accused me of nor does it make a case for any of your bullshit claims.

As for the high testosterone thing. I would imagine that every person chased down and mauled to death by a predator animal had unusually high adrenaline levels. It would not necessarily mean that the animals were attracted to attacking people with high adrenaline levels. Similar, with the high testosterone. The fact that someone has high testosterone probably means that IF they are crazy and have high testosterone that they are likely to do crazy things in their craziness and if they have high testosterone this will more likely be something violent in their crazy behaviour.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 12, 2017, 03:47:39 PM
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE...

Oh, oh, Odeon. You're quite the comedian, as always.
 
i'll give you all some insight on Mr Adulterer who loves to act as the arbiter of  US gun control. (Could be false, for all I know.)

From his work, Odeon has allegedly profited from the arms industry - he had work contracts with militaries . It's humourous how he lectures a former US Marine, who has seen death and destruction in Kosovo, on gun violence which he himself has benefited from to ensure a comfortable existence for him and his family.

As for your daughters, well, when they get cheated on, you have to scold them for not putting out enough to satiate their significant other's sexual desires. You did betray their mother for similar reasons, I seem to recall.


Hahahaha...

Arms industry, Odeon? How have you benefited from the arms industry?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 12, 2017, 04:17:14 PM
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
This.

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.

violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: redface on October 12, 2017, 04:47:53 PM
Unfortunately for pms elle, mgtow is on the rise.

Men quitting the gynocentric system in droves, especially in Japan - herbivore men.

Let the world burn.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 12, 2017, 05:02:00 PM
Am still holding out hope Elle might wish to discuss the topic of toxic masculinity with Jack.
This got kind of buried in the peanut gallery, where I wasn't technically supposed to reply to it, but- did you have questions, comments, something in particular you wanted to discuss?
This.

I absolutely think toxic masculinity plays a role in a lot of these shootings.
Touched on this very very lightly before, the last time in a gun discussion here. Wont go as far as to make the call of knowing if it's sociological or biological, and personally think it's possibly more biological. It's easy to analyze crime stats and logically point to multiple different areas as the source of the problem, some blame guns, some blame race, some blame poverty, some blame sociological aspects, and even I successfully used data to blame the baby boomers. These are all logical conclusions supported by hard facts. Though if one were to take an brass tacks look at the bottom line of the stats, violent crime is primarily a male problem. It can be a harsh thing to put out there in a conversation, but there it is.

violent crime is primarily a male problem.
It's interesting this received no response, not even from Elle. There have been scientific studies conducted which conclude a link between violent crime and higher than average levels of testosterone.
I'm not clear what you want from me, then.  Is there a question you want me to answer?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 12, 2017, 05:13:35 PM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: redface on October 12, 2017, 05:19:33 PM
Men are at fault, blah, blah.

Les is wasting his precious time on this earth to debate within this atmosphere of  misandry.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 12, 2017, 06:48:06 PM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Almighty Kek on October 12, 2017, 06:50:52 PM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P

How much education do you have in Evolutionary Psychology??
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 12, 2017, 07:32:39 PM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 12, 2017, 08:18:47 PM
I think she simply likes the opportunity to dump on white cishet males and if they are rich or christian too, all the better. Its all about the oppressor/victim hierachy structure of tge Progressive stack. It is evolved Marxist theory.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 12, 2017, 08:27:15 PM
Men are at fault, blah, blah.

Les is wasting his precious time on this earth to debate within this atmosphere of  misandry.

You are right Redface. Progressive Politics and progressive Feminism suck all rationality out of any discussion.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 12, 2017, 10:23:44 PM
It is not that simple as violence boiling down to more endogenous androgenic steroids=more likely to rob little old ladies, beat up kids and  were unaware, autism has also a tie-in with elevated test levels. Also, Males who are not on the spectrum, but who have an XYY karyotype (frequency-approximately 1/1000) are usually tall, but have typically few if any other distinguishing phenotypical features and do not tend to show ill health due to the aneuploidy. They have been studied, also, specifically with angles examining rates of violence and the two have been found not to correlate, at least according to the wikipedia article on XYY, although I haven't gone so far as to read the cited studies, if anybody wants the papers and they are paywalled, just ask and I'll upload them somewhere.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, XXYY karyotype males also, don't show an increased propensity towards criminal violence. Although interestingly there is apparently a correlation with being on the autistic spectrum, as well as for certain health, fertility problems and for a higher rate of learning or other cognitive disabilities.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that whilst people can be altered biochemically, generally what is not there to begin with does not manifest. For example, get two people absolutely staggering, batshit drunk or give the benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics either to a degree where their inhibitions are taken away, and let one of this pair be of a mild-mannered, caring, gentle disposition not through force of will and iron self-discipline in order to fit in with society, but be he such as to whom this manner is an inherent trait and part of who they are, and the other to be considered, let him be when sober, behave himself well in manner and without malice, but let it also fall upon this man to require a conscious (or subconscious) effort on their part to keep their anger in check, to refrain from being domineering and altogether unpleasant.


Get both intoxicated to the point where they are in an equally dissociated state, and without provocation, observe the situation unfold. I should very much think that the first man, the one by nature mild mannered and of good character would of course, end up a drunken, shambolic, quite possibly gobby, uncoordinated mess. But the second example, the man who by day and when sober keeps his domineering personality and his propensity towards violence as it were, held on a tight leash, is going to be more likely to assault somebody. Whilst in the case of the gentleman by character they are IMO unlikely to for example, rape somebody, batter them, or both. Because it is a lot easier to unmask a trait hidden, than to create de novo one which formerly is not there under the surface, however deeply buried.

Easy enough to bring out somebody's inner bastard, but an awful lot harder to make a thug from a tender, caring, loving and unaggressive person, at least when out of the critical phase of childhood, and internalizing the values of others, of society etc. etc. You can breed a cunt, but not really magic one up. So to speak.

Or at the very least, it is a lot harder to do so in the good mannered subject, than it would be to provoke somebody who is already going about their day-to-day business whilst having to check impulses to let their inner bastard slip the leash. The closer to the surface it is in somebody's nature, the easier it is going to be.

I am not for the 'nature vs nurture' argument setting. Rather, both are very important. You can start with somebody who's basest makeup is to surrender to their animal instincts, and save for the extreme cases, psychopathy etc. 'train' and educate them, surround them with a loving family as a child and hopefully have them grow up to be decent human beings, but starting out, would be people who either left to their own devices would grow to have their inner bastard not only slip the leash but who'd never fit it with a collar to begin with, or those who could go either way, yet place someone in a dysfunctional pestilence of a household and it is likely to end up carrying over, the apple falling not far from the tree.

Although the converse does happen, there do seem to be people who, albeit in the worst kind of way possible, learn from their own awful experiences that they would never want to become that which had abused them. To me, its quite obvious that both are important. Both inherent disposition and their upbringing. Nature and nurture both, are critical.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Fun with matches on October 13, 2017, 01:33:01 AM
Despite people not always appearing how they really are, some people clearly have "creep" stamped on their faces. And no, I'm not talking about a bunch of male aspies ever accused of being a creep.

Thing is, if high profile people like him were predicted to become mass murderers, nothing could be done to prevent it anyway because of their positions.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 13, 2017, 02:35:25 AM
Yeah I know what you mean FWM. Some people seem almost BORN with a birthmark in the shape of the sigil of baphomet and the letters 'C R E E P'
on their foreheads at the points of the inverted pentagram :P

And for those of that sort who aren't, then there are plenty who need tattooing.

My former housemate showcases a good example (in two ways, the second being that she was a klepto, real nutcase klepto that'd do anything from my catching her running into my old man's bedroom when he woke up and went for a piss, and yank a fucking bunch of banknotes out of his wallet and quletly dive back out and into her at the time bedroom, now reconverted to better purposes than housing that fucking hell-whore, namely part of my lab.
She'd bloody pinch things that had neither value monetarily nor even entertainment value, old man once saw her steal a little coil of hair-fine wire thats of no use outside electronics development and fabrication. Had to be solely for the fuck of it. And if confronted she would lie her dick  off her face in spite of being seen doing something)

Even worse, she was an ultra-rapid cycling bipolar, borderline PD (in hindsight, and after being warned about her by kassiane S, now obviously so) fucking piece of gutter infesting dog waste of the worst possible kind. Slowly, I found out later, had been stealing my meds, although she couldn't take them herself, wasn't a drug abuse thing since she is apparently allergic, potentially fatally so to hydrocodone (vicodin etc), we don't use it here but my pain meds, morphine and oxycodone are very close chemically and it wouldn't be at all surprising if they would trigger her allergy. In hindsight, that would have been great had I thought of it at the time, could have poisoned her, offed the bloody bitch and gotten away with it. Rather than using them, or antiseizure meds, she'd hide them, found a great fucking pile she'd stolen of all sorts of meds off me after she snapped her last shred of sanity and attempted to gut me with a katana, and ended up kicked to the curb after having the snot knocked out of her, and narrowly avoiding ending up with a bullet in her ugly face.

Stashing the meds, and forcing me into WD, trying to trick me into thinking I was just wasted and didn't know it. I wasn't, she'd been systematically fucking with things so she could try to get a handle on me, and offer her own pain meds and fucking temazepam/valium if things were done her way.

Stole (at least) two kittens. Who from I don't know but one day there wasn't a cat in her room the next there was. That one escaped so another, looking just like the one who got away from her, only a kitten, age-wise, that one stayed, wasn't really much I could do other than end up feeding and caring for the poor wee mite. Even if I'd known where the kitten came from, there would have been one hell of a lot of explaining to do, IF they weren't of the type to just shoot the messenger first and read the message later, no idea what I'd be walking into, so he stayed.Stole (at least) two kittens. Who from I don't know but one day there wasn't a cat in her room the next there was. That one escaped so another, looking just like the one who got away from her, only a kitten, age-wise, that one stayed, wasn't really much I could do other than end up feeding and caring for the poor wee mite. Even if I'd known where the kitten came from.


Falsely cried rape against her then bf when she had, it appears, bled him dry and had no further use for him; she was a really spiteful, nasty and vengeful little slag. Cried rape against her own parents although whether that was true or  false, or even a joint effort between her and her parents to get rid of her to somebody else, since they won't have been able to stand her anymore
than I can. Also made the same claim against a previous BF, again short term, who she used for a plane ticket here after deciding to flee the US, allegedly, according to the whore from hades, because of her abusive parents and then claimed raped her.

Although I am somewhat dubious about that guy even with HER history of bitch-dom. He's got creepy scumbag written all over him (quite a natural partner for her then :P), since he WAS a stalky creep, who's best friend is a mentally twisted piece of shit who stalks a dead baby, and has gone to the baby's parents house expressing 'a closeness' and 'sympathy', who IIRC also has some weird fucked up thing for babies shoes and possibly diapers.

So that I could see actually being true. Kassi told me a few things about him too and his friend that were...shall we say, rather less than favourable or complimentary.The kinds of things most people here wouldn't ask questions and move straight to slamming his head into the nearest brick wall should they hear them and he subsequently be found in the same US state as their kids. Or for that matter, for those without kids, beaten senseless on sight, on general principle of it being the correct thing to do for the good of the species, his diaper-molestering, dead-baby-stalking companion and his existence being expediently removed from being part thereof being unarguably a damned good thing indeed :P)

Not sure if that guy DID rape her, given her history and the fact she is a lying creep and a total psychotic cunt, but if he did, good. Serves her right (no, I'd not usually say this about ANYONE, but given she's lied about exactly that most likely at least twice, minimum once and potentially, four times that I know of. I hope she does. I sincerely some sick piece of shit does kidnap her, torture her and rape her, and dump her out in the wilderness to walk back to the civilization she is not and never will be part of; only to seek help and end up being told to eat shit and die, and have nobody believe her; so she can suffer for the rest of her vile, miserable days as she so richly deserves)

People who make claims like that for no more reason than they have either tired of somebody or have bled them dry of resources and need a fresh victim with money and shelter,  deserve everything they get and so much the better if they do end up raped, their face stamped to a pulp and thrown in a back alley for the crows to pick at, going unbelieved by the pigs because of their history. Serves the fuck right if she was raped by that prick. In all honesty I'd just as soon round them both up, nail their ankles, knees and arms to a wooden plank atop a pyre and burn them both alive. Slowly, so CO poisoning or suffocation wouldn't end their suffering any faster or more mercifully, but leave them to slowly cook over a fire until the wooden plank they are nailed to are consumed and their raw, bleeding bodies can be salted before they die and left spasming and twitching to roast until the juices run clear when a knife is stuck in them. Especially the hell bitch. I've had the displeasure of running into some deepply unpleasant people at times before, but this creature, she was a real weapons-grade creep, and a borderline fucking bitch who deserves nothing less than to die screaming. She is as close to true cold, calculating, utterly depraved an example of actual evil as I have ever met or ever could wish not to.

God I fucking hate borderlines.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 13, 2017, 05:16:26 AM
It is not that simple as violence boiling down to more endogenous androgenic steroids=more likely to rob little old ladies, beat up kids and  were unaware, autism has also a tie-in with elevated test levels. Also, Males who are not on the spectrum, but who have an XYY karyotype (frequency-approximately 1/1000) are usually tall, but have typically few if any other distinguishing phenotypical features and do not tend to show ill health due to the aneuploidy. They have been studied, also, specifically with angles examining rates of violence and the two have been found not to correlate, at least according to the wikipedia article on XYY, although I haven't gone so far as to read the cited studies, if anybody wants the papers and they are paywalled, just ask and I'll upload them somewhere.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, XXYY karyotype males also, don't show an increased propensity towards criminal violence. Although interestingly there is apparently a correlation with being on the autistic spectrum, as well as for certain health, fertility problems and for a higher rate of learning or other cognitive disabilities.

And it shouldn't be forgotten that whilst people can be altered biochemically, generally what is not there to begin with does not manifest. For example, get two people absolutely staggering, batshit drunk or give the benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotics either to a degree where their inhibitions are taken away, and let one of this pair be of a mild-mannered, caring, gentle disposition not through force of will and iron self-discipline in order to fit in with society, but be he such as to whom this manner is an inherent trait and part of who they are, and the other to be considered, let him be when sober, behave himself well in manner and without malice, but let it also fall upon this man to require a conscious (or subconscious) effort on their part to keep their anger in check, to refrain from being domineering and altogether unpleasant.


Get both intoxicated to the point where they are in an equally dissociated state, and without provocation, observe the situation unfold. I should very much think that the first man, the one by nature mild mannered and of good character would of course, end up a drunken, shambolic, quite possibly gobby, uncoordinated mess. But the second example, the man who by day and when sober keeps his domineering personality and his propensity towards violence as it were, held on a tight leash, is going to be more likely to assault somebody. Whilst in the case of the gentleman by character they are IMO unlikely to for example, rape somebody, batter them, or both. Because it is a lot easier to unmask a trait hidden, than to create de novo one which formerly is not there under the surface, however deeply buried.

Easy enough to bring out somebody's inner bastard, but an awful lot harder to make a thug from a tender, caring, loving and unaggressive person, at least when out of the critical phase of childhood, and internalizing the values of others, of society etc. etc. You can breed a cunt, but not really magic one up. So to speak.

Or at the very least, it is a lot harder to do so in the good mannered subject, than it would be to provoke somebody who is already going about their day-to-day business whilst having to check impulses to let their inner bastard slip the leash. The closer to the surface it is in somebody's nature, the easier it is going to be.

I am not for the 'nature vs nurture' argument setting. Rather, both are very important. You can start with somebody who's basest makeup is to surrender to their animal instincts, and save for the extreme cases, psychopathy etc. 'train' and educate them, surround them with a loving family as a child and hopefully have them grow up to be decent human beings, but starting out, would be people who either left to their own devices would grow to have their inner bastard not only slip the leash but who'd never fit it with a collar to begin with, or those who could go either way, yet place someone in a dysfunctional pestilence of a household and it is likely to end up carrying over, the apple falling not far from the tree.

Although the converse does happen, there do seem to be people who, albeit in the worst kind of way possible, learn from their own awful experiences that they would never want to become that which had abused them. To me, its quite obvious that both are important. Both inherent disposition and their upbringing. Nature and nurture both, are critical.
Not suggesting targeting everyone based on testosterone levels, but rather people who have been convicted for violence. Studies of prison populations show a person could basically walk in and separate the violent crime from the non-violent crime based only on testosterone levels and be less than ten percent wrong. Correlation doesn't always prove causation, but these are scientific results that deserve attention. Even if it's true that nurture is important, should anyone care? It may be too late to treat their nurture. Am questioning if society could benefit from taking a medial approach to violence.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 13, 2017, 05:29:14 AM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.

How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?

Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 13, 2017, 05:51:42 AM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.

How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?

Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.

Pick fights about? She wasn't.

Hey Elle, stop pretending that you are some kind of victim. You aren't. You are just a dickhead
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 13, 2017, 09:01:24 AM
Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.

In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 13, 2017, 05:15:50 PM
Just thought a nature vs nurture discussion on the topic of violence would be interesting. There are no specific questions, no.
If there's something specific you want to debate or have answered, let me know, and but I'm not trying to write a thesis on something as incredibly broad and depressing as the origins of violence just to entertain you.  :P
Okay. Then just tell me what you think about what I said. You seemed to present the point that violent criminal acts are rooted in social influences. That's a fairly common stance and not too difficult to argue. I purposely said society doesn't encourage anyone to be violent criminals, hoping you might point out the falsehood in that statement. :laugh: My taking the stance that they have a chemical imbalance and basically they can't help it would be much harder. What do you think of the idea of monitoring and managing the testosterone levels of people convicted of violence? Violent crime goes well beyond the topic of guns, so even removing guns from the equation might no make a huge difference. Don't think people always fit some mental health diagnosis to be violent, but do think it's interesting criminally violent acts don't automatically qualify one for mandated mental health care. Do you think medically treating violence as a mental health condition would be beneficial, or is it more important to address culture?
I think it's a combination of both nature and nurture, like everything else.

How about actually linking these studies you keep mentioning?

Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 13, 2017, 07:20:30 PM
I just think it's interesting that society doesn't look at people who are a danger to others, similar to how it looks at people who are a danger to themselves. There's something wrong with them. Testosterone connected to violence isn't a new idea. Since no one will contradict me, I'll contradict myself. There's also been post mortem brain studies which show the serotonin levels of suicide victims are comparable to murderers. Haven't read it said why serotonin would make some suicidal while others homicidal, but maybe hormonal imbalance is worth looking at as the difference. Is society partially to blame? Maybe it is, for locking these people in a cage and then letting them out later with no treatment. A key argument for the sociological foundation of violence is that it's a cycle. Maybe that's true too and some violent people are simply victims of violence.  If it's either, or, both, or none of the above, it still seems odd medical intervention isn't a primary course of action to balancing them, subduing them, breaking the cycyle, or whatever people want to call it.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 13, 2017, 07:31:49 PM
Medical intervention, if it took the form of drugging them against their will, could be seen as a more invasive punishment than simply locking them in a room.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 13, 2017, 07:57:06 PM
Medical intervention, if it took the form of drugging them against their will, could be seen as a more invasive punishment than simply locking them in a room.
Mandated mental health treatment by a court of law already exists, not only for people mandated to mental health facilities or with outpatient commitments, but also people with mental health conditions in prisons, and as conditions for parole and probation. It does happen with criminals, but it's not the standard because criminal violence isn't considered a mental health issue on its own. It makes sense not all will accept treatment, and maybe can't or shouldn't be force to, but it's also not widely accepted that's what they need. Violent criminals need to be punished; that's what's widely accepted.   
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 14, 2017, 01:30:45 AM
The cycle of violence point you make is more on the mark than you could possibly know.

There is little to no mental health help available for those who seek it, let alone those who outright need it, not until people start screaming it was the ghost of santa-claus that made them turn into satan's messenger and kill all those inmates with a sock full of pool balls and drawing messages on the walls using their brain matter as paint.

And they tend to keep people in primitive conditions, extreme overcrowding. Anybody particularly vulnerable mentally (physically they might get treated with some compassion by other inmates, but mentally, they are going to get thrown to the wolves without the least bit of doubt, and it won't change until and unless they do something drastic to somebody that the ravening hordes will back off.)

Its worse when the specific prison is full of young, hotheaded thug types. A lot better when it is lifers in max sec, they tend to be older, have cooled down and to just want to get on with as little conflict as possible. The other kind,  they have something to prove, in their own outlook, and are actively looking for a target to use to prove it. Its not pretty. Really, really not pretty at all.

And there is a cycle, a revolving door often enough. You take somebody who's spent a long time on the inside and had to adapt to those kinds of conditions, forever watching their back to avoid getting a shiv stuck in it, and they end up on an adrenaline-primed pre fight-flight response, a prolonged state of hypervigilance and alert, that tears at the psyche and is over a long term if not quickly overcome, going to wear somebody down into the ground. And thats if they don't, as a result, end up getting into a fight that the prison environment primed them for, or worse.

And then these people who may know little else, have had no counselling or similar pre-release help, are simply handed their property, whatever they might have, if they have anything more than a packet of smokes a box of matches and a few bits of food, the clothing on their back, and told right, get out of here.

That is no way at all to prime somebody for reintegration into society.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 14, 2017, 09:26:48 AM
And they tend to keep people in primitive conditions,
Think it's important for the accommodations of prison to be unappealing, else it might not be much of a deterrent. Plus it is supposed to be a punishment. Once was criticized for pointing out the positives of being imprisoned. Being removed from society makes people exempt from the responsibilities and demands of living in society, so prisoners have a level of freedom that free people don't really know or have. If it were a comfortable place to be, then the company one would have to keep might be the only deterrent for people who would rather have that freedom from society than to have the freedom to roam around in it.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 14, 2017, 05:29:52 PM
IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE...

Oh, oh, Odeon. You're quite the comedian, as always.
 
i'll give you all some insight on Mr Adulterer who loves to act as the arbiter of  US gun control. (Could be false, for all I know.)

From his work, Odeon has allegedly profited from the arms industry - he had work contracts with militaries . It's humourous how he lectures a former US Marine, who has seen death and destruction in Kosovo, on gun violence which he himself has benefited from to ensure a comfortable existence for him and his family.

As for your daughters, well, when they get cheated on, you have to scold them for not putting out enough to satiate their significant other's sexual desires. You did betray their mother for similar reasons, I seem to recall.


Hahahaha...

Arms industry, Odeon? How have you benefited from the arms industry?

I am actually interested in this clain.
Association with the nefarious arms industry?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 15, 2017, 01:52:32 AM
I'm sure you are, but why is that? Are you looking for more drama?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 15, 2017, 04:34:28 AM
I'm sure you are, but why is that? Are you looking for more drama?

It is something that has never come up before and not only is it left field but it also seems in complete contrast and contradiction to your gun control narratives. If you WERE involved in the arms industry (even tangentially) it would, on its face, be massively hypocritical. Of course, it may be that you weren't. It may also mean that you did have your hands in this and now feel disgust for the arms industry from an informed point of view (given previous involvement).

ALL of that is interesting to me and for those reasons.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 15, 2017, 07:26:44 AM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 15, 2017, 07:50:43 AM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 15, 2017, 08:48:41 AM
Jack, you misunderstand entirely the magnitude of HOW primitive and barbaric the conditions are. It is only recently after appeals to central authorities that the practice of 'slopping out' was outlawed. This means removing the contents of the buckets prisoners had to piss and shit in during lockup time.

Also personal safety within prisons is at a minimum. Its one thing if a fight breaks out in the central space of the wing, there it is visible and can be broken up quickly, likewise prison riots. But entirely another when somebody is in their cell during unlock time, doing whatever, keeping themselves to themselves, its perfectly easy for one (or a group) person to go into another cell (and this often happens for completely benign reasons also) with ill-intentions, be it robbery, physical assault, or worse.

I know of one person who, because of quite how medieval the conditions are, attempted to commit suicide by ramming a broom-handle up their arse and jumping off the top bunk in a 2-man cell. That ought to give you an idea of quite how bad things can be. And nobody can go to seek help, other than if they have sufficient support, to round up a posse of other inmates and go and put somebody in hospital. Anybody who would report an incident (to prison staff) would instantly end up a pariah and have the entire wing turn against them and be considered fair game for any kind of action whatsoever.

And if that doesn't give you an idea of how bad things can get. I..know of somebody who had to resort to, to avoid being raped and killed by some hard-case thug with a pack of similar friends, responsible for a terror-campaign initiated without any reason than their entertainment, to have to resort to the extermination by poison of the ringleader. Successfully I might add.  Should conditions be SO bad, that inmate on inmate killings in a defensive capacity need be resorted to in order for an inmate to preserve their own life and to avoid being violated sexually? (the ringleader thug in question made the fatal mistake of issuing a threat and telling the..other inmate, what they intended) and dissappeared shortly after to hospital. To the best of my knowledge they did not return.

And there are also things I have not personally witnessed, but just as bad or worse, on documentaries about UK prisons, that I couldn't even stand to watch. People being forced to fight each other like dogs for drugs by other inmates, being filmed on smuggled in mobile phones, known of by the screws, who were uninterested in putting a stop to it. Couldn't keep watching the rest of it. It was as barbaric as the leaked footage from abu ghraib and guantanamo bay. Not joking, I've seen both and there was little difference, only in (some of) the methods.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 15, 2017, 11:01:51 AM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.

I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you.  :M
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 15, 2017, 12:03:32 PM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.

Learn to live with it, then.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 15, 2017, 01:21:55 PM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.

Learn to live with it, then.

Meh, it is curiosity, no biggie.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 15, 2017, 04:41:36 PM
Jack, you misunderstand entirely the magnitude of HOW primitive and barbaric the conditions are. It is only recently after appeals to central authorities that the practice of 'slopping out' was outlawed. This means removing the contents of the buckets prisoners had to piss and shit in during lockup time.
Had never heard of it and had to look it up. Wouldn't expect that sort of thing in wealthy countries, so yes, entirely misunderstood the magnitude of what was said. Some people think US prisons can be a bit too accommodating, but having access to a toilet isn't part of that argument. :laugh:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 15, 2017, 08:09:15 PM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.

I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you.  :M

Ni idea. I think he gets the reaction he fishes for when he insults me though.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 15, 2017, 08:57:55 PM
In other words, you want more drama. You really need to get a life.

No, I was simply curious. You get a life you dumb cunt. I was not being at all insulting. So go fuck yourself.

Is that better and is that what you want? Curious about that too.

I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you.  :M
Does it help that I'm interested too? :laugh:
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 15, 2017, 09:16:43 PM
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you.  :M

Ni idea.

You honestly have no idea?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 15, 2017, 10:32:02 PM
I can't imagine why Odeon wouldn't want to have a personal discussion about beliefs with you.  :M

Ni idea.

You honestly have no idea?

Yeah I don't. If he were simply not wishing to discuss it then, rationally speaking, he would hace said something along the lines of " Yeah, loo, I really don't want to get into that."

Is that what he did? Nope.

He engaged and asked why I was interested and whrre my motivation was and then insulted me (mindless of his own offered truce).

So yes, I have no idea
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 15, 2017, 10:33:53 PM
Reads to me like the behavior of a person who is suspicious about your intent.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 16, 2017, 12:26:12 AM
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.

Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 16, 2017, 01:10:04 AM
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.

Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.

Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"

As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 16, 2017, 03:33:19 AM
Jack. I've never been in a US prison. I've never been to the US for that matter.

But England is a wealthy enough first-world nation with the capacity to ensure that the facilities are, whilst no lap of luxury, not barbaric. There is a difference and a big one between unfavourable conditions and utter barbarism. I've SEEN it; firsthand, I KNOW what I'm talking about.

And you know what? the access to medical care is so primitive, that I was in seizure for so long, I was unaware there was food thrown through the door-hatch (and this on the medical wing) for so long that by the time it stopped I had, going from the looks of me, almost starved to death. Yes. No joking. I looked like the pictures you see of jews liberated from auschwitz and other concentration camps. It did permanent damage, and honestly, I am surprised either the seizures didn't kill me or the starvation did not (there was food thrown in, but you cannot eat what you do not know is there)
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 16, 2017, 05:33:28 AM
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.
Why on earth woudln't you link them?

Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.

In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
It's a me at my own personal limit thing.  This isn't abstract to me.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 16, 2017, 05:48:38 AM
Also, because the question of "victim mentality" keeps coming up- in this particular context, how the actual fuck else should we be conceptualizing the people who were on the receiving end of a bullet just for going to a fucking country music concert?  How should we conceptualize their loved ones?  Like, do you know the definition of the word victimThey are victims of murder.  Fucking christ.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting-victims/index.html
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 16, 2017, 05:53:07 AM
BTW for studies which are not open access and require payment I can get them without this inconvenience, just give me the DOI numbers, or at the very least, the PMIDs so that I can track the DOI down for a paper and download it, then upload it to a sharing/hosting site for anybody to download. Or alternatively just give a direct link to the paper in question.

And if this is too much then use sci-hub.cc or sci-hub.io (no www this will cause the site not to display) although not by way of a deliberate block, simply reentering the address without  the www prefix will cause it to work as it should.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 16, 2017, 06:54:02 AM
And in respect of my earlier point Re: unfavourable conditions vs barbarism, an important point, is that such an environment as fostered by the latter, with an inmate constantly having no choice but to watch their backs against hostile encroachment upon personal space and if (or rather, WHEN) it happens, to demonstrate with extreme violence. Not only violence sufficient to end the immediate event, but also, in a 'dramatic' kind of way, to ensure that others seeing the event take place are made aware that the same would happen also to them, were they to try the same thing. To send a message that any messing with the person subject to attack will be met with extreme retaliation; this will, once become an ingrained pattern of behavior as it must do as a survival adaptation in such an environment of constant and unpredictable hostility, become the default response of the person in question without pre-release (or preferably during their incarceration mental healthcare accessibility that goes beyond simply continuing to medicate already diagnosed schizophrenics [and thats about as far as it gets inside], here, even in by far the best conditions)

The vulnerable, are as good as dead. And god help anybody who is LFA who were to get banged up, unless they were physically strong enough to beat the aggressor senseless or if not then of a very heavy-set build so as to deter people from trying merely by sight.

Even after putting weight back on, I was forced to fight for my life on a near daily basis. Until transferred, after something bad happened to somebody who attempted violence upon my person for the last time I was prepared to merely fight against, to max-sec at a different prison entirely, I don't remember there being a single day, other than those spent in solitary (the prison staff may not have known this, but this was to me, being autie, not a punishment, in fact they could well have used it in my case as a reward for good conduct, I'd actively try to get myself sent down the block since it meant not being surrounded by thugs, not being surrounded by the worst parts of society (bar the paeophiles. The vulnerable do have the option of requesting protective custody, but that means being housed in the same wing as the nonces, and it being assumed that the person in question IS a paedo, regardless of the reason. And its probably as unsafe as being in the main wings or more so. At least in the main section of the jails youre not likely to find ground up glass or poisons in your food, or human excrement. Never been in such 'protective' areas myself, but housing the vulnerable (for any other reason) with the sex offenders seems to me like a gross injustice way above and beyond the sentence handed down judicially as a function of legal due process, knowing that other, non-pervert offenders will take any and every opportunity available to make suffer, wound or kill anybody in this area of 'protective' custody. And from what I know of it, although never having been in this environment myself, having the only contact being through those in the hospital wing the screws themselves aren't particularly shy about joining in if they get the chance and cannot be seen to do it, and they certainly, from what I've been told by other inmates, won't lift a finger to break up a fight until it becomes obvious to all of the staff that permanent and serious injury or/and potential fatality is going to be the outcome (I.e they don't want the paperwork for somebody dying on their watch))

Once conditioning, and having to use that conditioning for potentialy many decades, its going to become ingrained deeply and a first response, making post-release violence more likely. And for those without a home to return to, being kicked out onto the street with nothing but whatever they are wearing, and whatever commissary they have at the time (I.e food, tobacco etc.) that gives them next to nothing to survive on, and their most basic need-food (water of course being more accessible without cost) an immediate concern, they are liable to get caught committing petty crime such as shoplifting just to put a meal in their stomachs, and when on parole, if caught, then sent back to serve the rest of their sentence, because they committed a further criminal offence, although petty, and for the direst of reasons (I.e do so and risk getting caught, or starve)

The employment prospects for ex-offenders are poor to near nonexistent for as long as the conviction is declarable so earning money legitimately is made extremely difficult also, leaving people with little recourse, getting hungrier and hungrier, weaker and weaker by the day unless the individual is extremely lucky. That is of course, for those either without family or those who do but which will not take the back.

If it wasn't for the fact I had family, and a place to return to, that is the situation I would myself have been forced into. I'd have had to steal, just to continue supplying my body with the carbohydrate and protein it needs to continue to function and have been on the street with nothing bar a few plastic bottles of drink, a few candy-type snacks of little nutritive value and some tobacco, papers and matches as well as the clothing on my back, were I most prisoners. I was in a sense, lucky, in that my family sent in, at my request, my personal stereo and music CDs, plus TIHKAL, PIHKAL and some other books. And during family visits, they'd buy food from vending machines and give it to me rather than eat it themselves, as well as send in some money for me to buy commissary food, and tobacco, since I couldn't do heavy manual labor courtesy of the joint injuries of old, and nerve damage resulting from the surgery I had on it and resultant mobility issues. (in the affected area of that leg its caused two effects, loss of sensation aside from pain, and below this, a constant and severe spasm of the calf. And inside I was denied even the myorelaxant I take to enable me to move properly and stop the calf muscle from being in severe, unremitting pain, the med in question also being somewhat hazardous physically to suddenly cease, being liable, in addition to subjectively most unpleasant rebound symptoms, to cause a massive and prolonged spike in blood pressure that in a severe case, or in the case of somebody with other cardiac or vascular issues could cause a heart attack or stroke)

There is a HUGE difference between 'negative reinforcement' and 'inhumane barbarism'

Jack-have you seen it from both sides? Have you ever had to stab somebody or stamp on somebody's face repeatedly just for the 'privilege' of sitting in your own cell to get some peace and quiet rather than going to the central communal mess-hall to consume your food, and to avoid having that food contaminated or outright stolen from you after a beating? Is this something you would condone as part of a judicial sentence?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 16, 2017, 08:38:29 AM
Am not trying to pick a fight with you, but do think conversations with or between people who agree aren't interesting. I like having things explained to me, and I like when people challenge me to think differently about what I'm saying, and challenging them to think about what they say, even if it means contradicting them with things I don't even agree with. As said to someone else recently, disagreeing isn't always fighting, or something like that. Though correct, it's nothing more than an interesting topic to me. Do you really want links? Does it matter if they're abstracts or full access studies? Testosterone and violence have been studied for a long time so there's probably hundreds of them, but would be willing to take the time to sift for a couple of good ones if you could overcome my shits and giggles. If not, it's not that big of a deal.
Why on earth woudln't you link them?

Also, Jack, I think to you this is a fun and abstract thing to talk about and pick fights about.  It's none of those things to me.  I'm willing to engage with you because at least there's a chance of some kind of dialogue, but there's only so much energy I'm willing to put into it if someone's just trying to have an extra-spicy water cooler conversation for shits n giggles.

In what context do you think it should be discussed? Is it a professional boundaries thing, like a serious discussion is too much like your work? Or a personal objection maybe?
It's a me at my own personal limit thing.  This isn't abstract to me.

Didn't you pick a fight with me? You got clowned, sure, but you did pick a fight...I think this goes some ways to the "victim" thing you are now trying to project to people being killed in Las Vegas? For an encore are you gonna tap dance on their graves?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 16, 2017, 10:15:33 AM
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.

Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.

Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"

As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.

Fair enough, but surely you can see where I'm coming from. Honestly, Al, I don't think we have the kind of relationship where my first thought when asked that question in the middle of a flame war is "it's an honest question, no harm intended". If you think this is overly negative, then I'm glad to hear it.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 16, 2017, 04:20:59 PM
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.

http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 16, 2017, 04:31:44 PM
Jack. I've never been in a US prison. I've never been to the US for that matter.

But England is a wealthy enough first-world nation with the capacity to ensure that the facilities are, whilst no lap of luxury, not barbaric. There is a difference and a big one between unfavourable conditions and utter barbarism. I've SEEN it; firsthand, I KNOW what I'm talking about.

And you know what? the access to medical care is so primitive, that I was in seizure for so long, I was unaware there was food thrown through the door-hatch (and this on the medical wing) for so long that by the time it stopped I had, going from the looks of me, almost starved to death. Yes. No joking. I looked like the pictures you see of jews liberated from auschwitz and other concentration camps. It did permanent damage, and honestly, I am surprised either the seizures didn't kill me or the starvation did not (there was food thrown in, but you cannot eat what you do not know is there)
That's really awful, Lestat; it was wrong of them to do that to you.

BTW for studies which are not open access and require payment I can get them without this inconvenience,
Thanks for the offer, but I don't want or need it for those links. Will keep it in mind for some other time.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 16, 2017, 04:36:24 PM
He responded to a troll's less than well-founded claims and then again to his own reply to the troll. Seemed to me that he was fishing for more drama and said as much, thinking that "get a life" is an appropriate response. Honestly, I can't see how that is particularly insulting.

Also, if he has no idea of why I won't engage in this discussion, I can't help him.

Try greeting people for one week with the phrase "Get a life"

As I say the claim was new, left field AND even topically relevant. Hardly drama. A "no idea" or "not really wanting to talk about it" would have put it to the sword without the drama that you have now created (presuming you were genuine in not wanting to either insult or start drama).
Me? I was curious (and am not the only one) and simply asked the question.

Fair enough, but surely you can see where I'm coming from. Honestly, Al, I don't think we have the kind of relationship where my first thought when asked that question in the middle of a flame war is "it's an honest question, no harm intended". If you think this is overly negative, then I'm glad to hear it.

I can't see where you are coming from. I rarely can these days.

But what was curiosity and mild interest was hardly worth this investment in things. I suspect there was more than a little bit of truth in the original claim. I think it rubbed you up the wrong way.

That all said, I don't much care.

As for you insulting me, I don't much care there either. I insulted you back and you made it clear there was miscommunication or misunderstanding....whatever, all good. shit happens.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 16, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
Jack-have you seen it from both sides? Have you ever had to stab somebody or stamp on somebody's face repeatedly just for the 'privilege' of sitting in your own cell to get some peace and quiet rather than going to the central communal mess-hall to consume your food, and to avoid having that food contaminated or outright stolen from you after a beating? Is this something you would condone as part of a judicial sentence?
No. Have no criminal history, though had a friend who did years ago. She said everyone has to sidle up to a group in prison; she chose the born-again Christians. She also lost a lot of weight, but she said that's because the food is crap.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 16, 2017, 05:06:29 PM
It's a me at my own personal limit thing.
That's fair enough. Had actually given up on it until it was brought up again.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 17, 2017, 05:30:23 AM
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.

http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
An immediate question that came to mind when the articles were described, that still remains unanswered for me, is the question of what causes elevated testosterone.  The last article at least touches on that, as well as the effect of nature vs nurture, even if we were to assume testosterone is always at a constant in individuals (I don't assume that).

Last article still supports the "be better as a society" solution.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 17, 2017, 05:36:33 PM
Why on earth woudln't you link them?
Because it wasn't read recently and didn't feel like looking it up. Crime has been a personal interest for about 25 years. Here's some links.

http://journals.lww.com/psychosomaticmedicine/Abstract/1987/03000/Saliva_testosterone_and_criminal_violence_in_young.7.aspx
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886988900888
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699400177T
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00200.x
An immediate question that came to mind when the articles were described, that still remains unanswered for me, is the question of what causes elevated testosterone.  The last article at least touches on that, as well as the effect of nature vs nurture, even if we were to assume testosterone is always at a constant in individuals (I don't assume that).

Last article still supports the "be better as a society" solution.
Not really certain if the last article touches on the cause elevation, but rather notes that the correlation between testosterone and delinquency is less evident in educated wealthy people. That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence, as now seeing it's not clear what portion of 'delinquency' is violence, if at all. Here's a better version of that one. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1175&context=psych_facpub  Though as for causes for changes in testosterone levels, have read being married can lower it and being recently divorced can make it rise. Age is also a factor for testosterone levels. Age was the reason for blaming the baby boomers before.

The sociological factors are very interesting to consider. US homicide rates differ dramatically by age, with the highest rates among ages 20-30. Homicide drops dramatically at age 40, and at that same age suicide rates begin to take over, with adults 45-60 equally suicidal as the young are murderous. While homicide has dramatically decreased to less than half the rates in 1990, US suicide rates have seen similar dramatic increase over the past two decades. When considering age, one could contemplate the young adult generation after then end of the Vietnam war and the age they are now today, and conclude the baby boomers are a sociologically damaged generation.
It's easy to look at US homicide rates over time, and wonder what happened from 1970 to 1990, and easy to look at suicide rates for the last fifteen years and wonder what is happening now. It's doesn't seem so difficult to understand when one considers who are these people.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 17, 2017, 08:30:19 PM
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.

https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf

The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 18, 2017, 05:36:22 AM
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.

https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf

The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels.  What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."

Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover.  I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 18, 2017, 02:32:42 PM
Elle-I agree with a lot of those point. Although IMO not with the statement that people with mental illneses are not somehow more likely to end up in poverty as a result. IMO those who are either mentally ill or mentally handicapped ARE more likely to be poor as a result, due to less ability (possibly, and of course depennding on the individual and nature of their issues,) but also much more likely not to be able to find work in the first place, especially if the disability is one of those which makes an individual evidently 'different' than the herd. With physical disabilities employers will bend over backwards to accommodate the disabled person,and there are a lot of laws granting physically disabled people protection in that respect, ostensibly doing so also for those with mental issues, but in their cases it seems a lot more likely to 'just not work out' that way.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 18, 2017, 07:12:54 PM
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.

https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf

The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels.  What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."

Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover.  I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
Yes, eugenics would be pushing it a bit, I just think society would benefit if they were drugged as standard course of action. It doesn't have to be anything unconventional related to this discussion. There's already drugs known to reduce violent aggression. That's not to say violent people shouldn't be jailed too. Though there doesn't seem much point to letting them back out without even some semblance of attempting to treat their symptom.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 18, 2017, 09:20:27 PM
Also, it is a gross oversimplification of things just to look at levels of one or more neurotransmitters and assign values such as 'low' or 'high' (outside of quite obviously pathological such as neurotransmitter/hormone-secreting tumors like phaeochromocytomas [a type of adrenal gland tumor which secretes massive, potentially fatal levels of noradrenaline, causing very high blood pressure and heart rate, can lead to strokes for example, and  additionally in this particular case can tie into violence, with people ending up having hair-trigger tempers, or believing themselves in danger due to the constant fight-or-flight response caused by a phaeochromocytoma]

Things such as overall neurological architecture, sensitivities of receptors in synapses, distribution and trafficking of neuron types, (this is often altered in many neurological diseases of genetic origin, where the neurons meant to migrate to a particular area fail to get the full way, or are altered in performance, are of altered morphology etc,) are a lot more important than simplistic interpretations such as 'has low/high XYZ'. And not only that, but the same neurotransmitter can and usually does do different things in different areas of the brain. For example dopamine, a catecholamine neurotransmitter; is responsible for both inhibitory control over movement in the area of the brain known as the substantia nigra, located, along with the striatum, in the nigro-striatal tract, here DA blocks spurious movement signalling and allows conscious, voluntary movement to be fluid and to proceed as it should (impairment hear is a prototypical feature of parkinson's disease) whereas DA signalling in the prefrontal cortex is strongly associated with attention and focus, whilst within the nucleus accumbens (you could, crudely, think of this area as a 'pleasure center', in a manner of speaking) is associated with rewarding and highly reinforcing effects. Many, perhaps even most, of the drugs of abuse having addictive properties such as cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, methylphenidate/ritalin, these cause large releases of DA within the nucleus accumbens.

So simple neurotransmitter levels don't tell the whole story, in fact they usually don't tell you very much at all, the WHEN, the WHY and critically, the WHERE are far more important.

Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: DirtDawg on October 18, 2017, 09:22:09 PM
Shit!
Fifteen pages on this already. Doubt there are any posts associated with helping the families of the fallen.

I will have to read some to know how to respond in my opinion.

I will say this on the outset. without reading it all:  I am a gun owner. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I do. None of that would have mattered in this case.

They want more strict gun laws, but from what I have read, this guy had bought legal weapons over a period of many years.
Now I will concede that a two hundred round drum magazine is not necessary.

I own a number of hunting weapons and I hunt for deer when I can but to be most honest, as a hunter tracking a live prey animal, I will probably only get ONE SHOT when it is time to shoot. It would be VERY rare to take a shot and miss and have the opportunity to take another shot. Most of my hunting rifles are five shot. I do have several that are single shot. As I said, hunting, you only rarely get one shot; forget needing a thirty round magazine.

Now all that sporting shit aside, I used to hunt for bounty on coyotes which were ravaging cattle ranches. I often had a twenty round magazine in my rifle, but again, I only rarely had a chance to shoot more than two or three rounds, even with a whole pack of predators in my sites.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 19, 2017, 05:04:55 AM
That particular study isn't a good example for a link to violence
Was thinking the conversation was over so didn't take the time to find good links. :laugh: Here's a couple of full text papers, one study and one peer review, related to the possible combination of testosterone and serotonin. The study is a primate study; the combined topic isn't easy to find for open access. Studies linking testosterone and violence generally focus on violent people, so while it seems clear violent people have high testosterone, what isn't clear is why some people with high testosterone are violent. In addition to what makes testosterone high, another question is what makes serotonin low.

https://www.ima.org.il/FilesUpload/IMAJ/0/54/27288.pdf
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(95)00675-3/pdf

The point of socioeconomic status in the other link is also a point difficult for me to get away from. It's common for race to come up in violent crime discussions, but the bottom line of violent crime statistics is gender, and the next to the bottom line is poverty. There aren't many reliably sourced statistics for violent crime by race and income, but they do show that violence has no racial preference when it comes to being poor. There isn't much information available to discuss if poverty may affect serotonin, or if people with low serotonin simply more likely to fail to achieve.
Yeah, I'm not exactly seeing evidence to advocate any kind of minority report/eugenics reaction to testosterone or serotonin levels.  What I'm seeing is "there's something there; it's complex."

Poverty is a constant stressor to experience (IMO it's inherently traumatic, and I'm not alone in thinking that), and it creates a higher risk of a lot of other traumas, with fewer resources to recover.  I don't think it's an either/or with mental illness and poverty- people who are mentally ill are more likely to *become* poor, but anything with a diathesis-stress component is more likely to express under stress, and poor people typically have access to fewer resources to get help.
Yes, eugenics would be pushing it a bit, I just think society would benefit if they were drugged as standard course of action. It doesn't have to be anything unconventional related to this discussion. There's already drugs known to reduce violent aggression. That's not to say violent people shouldn't be jailed too. Though there doesn't seem much point to letting them back out without even some semblance of attempting to treat their symptom.
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 19, 2017, 05:21:22 AM
Absolutely it would Elle. And medical care is both piss poor AND neglectful in the extreme. People are more likely to go without medical help than they are to get it by a long shot, even to the extent of having the essential medications they already took at the time of arrest, etc. knowingly and deliberately denied them.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 19, 2017, 05:31:59 AM
Absolutely it would Elle. And medical care is both piss poor AND neglectful in the extreme. People are more likely to go without medical help than they are to get it by a long shot, even to the extent of having the essential medications they already took at the time of arrest, etc. knowingly and deliberately denied them.
Or given them improperly (ex. grinding up pills that aren't supposed to be ground up).
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Lestat on October 19, 2017, 07:15:35 AM
IMO that just falls under negligence. It isn't really of much point to try to define WHAT prison medical care is negligent with, WHAT they do wrong or just don't do, its more a case of what DON'T they fuck up.

Although one particular thing that strikes me as both fucked up and potentially dangerous depending on what people are on is a blanket 'no medication given in the first 24 hours' I'm surprised they haven't inflicted that on a diabetic or heart patient and that it as of yet (that I know of at least) has not come to bite them on the arse, in the form of a corpse.

Although due to medical negligence they nearly did. Leaving somebody having severe seizures that ought to have been in the ICU in a proper hospital untreated and for that matter not even WATCHED for so long that they nearly starve to death because they were unable to even realize food is thrown onto the floor let alone stand...if that isn't fucking close to attempted murder I don't know what is.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 19, 2017, 04:36:14 PM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 19, 2017, 06:39:15 PM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 20, 2017, 03:08:32 AM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: PMS Elle on October 20, 2017, 05:37:17 AM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 20, 2017, 06:11:07 AM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.
Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?

Hey PMSElle, why don't you answer the allegations you made about me,  that you were called out on rather than trying for unwarranted condescending snark at Jack? Just a thought.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Fun with matches on October 20, 2017, 09:56:17 AM
I like Jack's open-mindedness and willingness to see both sides. You need that sort of mind to figure out answers, and decent ones.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 20, 2017, 09:58:02 AM
She has a tendency to *argue* both sides, though.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Fun with matches on October 20, 2017, 10:37:55 AM
That's the point.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 20, 2017, 12:33:03 PM
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 20, 2017, 03:42:30 PM
No way that wouldn't end up accidentally killing some prisoners, though.

And, they do give some prisoners headmeds.
Do know some prisoners get meds; mentioned that previously. Not sure why it would kill them. It's standard practice to medically treat people who are a danger to themselves; see no reason why it should be different for those who are a danger to others.

Give literally everyone in every large-enough group the same medication, and at least one of those people will have an adverse reaction to that medication.
The potential for adverse reaction is true for a lot of people conditions and medications. The adverse result of their violence seems clear enough. It wasn't a suggestion for a one stop answer for all dished out by a layman. It would be better to argue that criminal violence on its own doesn't qualify as a mental disorder and psychotropic drugs don't sit well with people who don't actually need them, than to suggest violent people shouldn't be routinely prescribed medications because someone might have an adverse reaction.
...Jack, why don't you just sit and argue both sides by yourself, then?
Don't even really know how to respond to the suggestion people shouldn't be medicated because someone might have a bad reaction, nor Lestat suggesting neuroscience is too complicated for the medical establishment to move forward with what is known and what works. Maybe you're right and I just shouldn't have responded to it at all, like I didn't to him.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 20, 2017, 03:43:07 PM
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Al Swearengen on October 20, 2017, 07:29:39 PM
I like Jack's open-mindedness and willingness to see both sides. You need that sort of mind to figure out answers, and decent ones.

Critical thinking is a great skill
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 20, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
I don't think the thought of greater good is necessarily a justification for drugging the violence out of prisoners. I'm not even convinced that the forced drugging that already routinely happens is a good idea.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 20, 2017, 10:35:44 PM
I don't think the thought of greater good is necessarily a justification for drugging the violence out of prisoners. I'm not even convinced that the forced drugging that already routinely happens is a good idea.
Not certain it's about the idea of the greater good. People have the right to be protected from violent criminals, and not just short term. Half of the people in state prisons are violent offenders, and the five year repeat offender rate for violent criminals is seventy percent with about half of those reoffending within the first year of release. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986 If they're really only bad people and not mentally disordered, then they shouldn't be let out. If violence is a mental problem then their addressing their need for treatment could be a stipulation to being a member of society.

Quote
A sixth (16.1%) of released prisoners were responsible for almost half (48.4%) of the nearly 1.2 million arrests that occurred in the 5-year follow-up period.
Think this is interesting. One sixth from one year, responsible for half over five years. It brings me back to a previous silly idea about the decline in violent crime since the 90's. Violent crime is declining but the recidivism rates suggest it's largely the same people stuck in a revolving door. Society may not be breeding many more violent criminals and violent crime may be on the decline because a lot of them are just dyeing off. Baby boomers.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Pyraxis on October 20, 2017, 10:48:24 PM
By people, do you mean the prison guards, during the incarceration? I don't see any viable way to enforce medication after the end of a sentence.

Maybe if I had more faith in medication as a long term and lasting solution to psychological issues, I could see it working, but the mind is more complex than that. Chemical imbalances are interwoven with conscious attitudes and patterns of experience and history. That's not the sort of thing you can make go away with a convenient little pill. Even mandated therapy, like anger management classes, is questionable. Do the people who are forced to attend actually have any lasting changes in behavior, or are they just being warm bodies in a room, learning to give the answers that people are looking for?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 21, 2017, 12:52:01 AM
People means people, everyone. It does happen for criminals with mental illness to be mandated to maintain mental healthcare as a condition of parole or probation; though have only heard of it as condition of lifetime supervised release for certain sex offenders. It's true medication doesn't work for everyone but it does help a lot of people, and sometimes that means maintaining it long term. Locking them up for a few years so they can get out to injure or kill someone again isn't good enough. Placing violent people back into society with the idea their debt has been paid isn't good enough. They owe it to society to stop being violent, and society isn't meeting its own obligation to enforce that.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 21, 2017, 01:53:01 AM
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.

True for most of us. Doesn't stop us from arguing, though.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 21, 2017, 12:01:40 PM
Which always makes me want to say "yes, but what do yo REALLY think?"
I really think there's a lot of things it simply doesn't matter what I think.

True for most of us. Doesn't stop us from arguing, though.
That's correct. Find it stimulating and healthy though. It's common in the learning of debate for people to simply be assigned a topic and a side. This challenges people to search for the validity of views which may be in opposition to their own. As a fundamentally black and white thinker and linear thinker, that personal challenge is probably often more important to fostering my own sense of tolerance than expressing my own personal bias, even though it probably makes my presence here come across as an argumentative cunt. That's more difficult to do in real life with people who don't really know me and therefore don't know what I really think, because there are situations where it is more important others don't get the impression I believe or support something I really don't.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 21, 2017, 03:10:57 PM
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 21, 2017, 03:44:39 PM
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
Am the opposite and find spouting my own rigid opinions to be boring. It leaves no room for conversation other than agreement, which is boring too, and only fuels a self-serving sense of importance in what I think. It's rare in certain types of discussions for there to be a simple right and wrong, and it's hard to know how to deal with opposition if unwilling to have an appreciation for it. Plus sometimes some of the things I think are just interesting to think. Lacking in any real passion, and even recognizing some level of absurdity in it, doesn't make it any less interesting to think. Shouldn't necessarily have to believe in something to make it worth discussing.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Fun with matches on October 21, 2017, 04:29:55 PM
^ Damn I wish I could plus you.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: Jack on October 21, 2017, 06:28:00 PM
^ Damn I wish I could plus you.
Not sure how plus worthy that is. People are just different. Odeon mentioned something worth consideration, and that's passion, which is different than stubbornness. When considering personal passions, they're all people, things, information, or activities, so can't really claim to even have an understanding of what it means to be truly passionate about an opinion, belief, or philosophy. That in itself may be a great and important thing and I don't know how to relate to it. Really only know how to relate to being stubborn about ideas.
Title: Re: The Tragedy in Las Vegas
Post by: odeon on October 22, 2017, 01:50:18 AM
I find assigned sides in arguments boring because it will usually--not always--kill the passion. I also tend to think that if you don't believe in an argument, why do it in the first place?
Am the opposite and find spouting my own rigid opinions to be boring. It leaves no room for conversation other than agreement, which is boring too, and only fuels a self-serving sense of importance in what I think. It's rare in certain types of discussions for there to be a simple right and wrong, and it's hard to know how to deal with opposition if unwilling to have an appreciation for it. Plus sometimes some of the things I think are just interesting to think. Lacking in any real passion, and even recognizing some level of absurdity in it, doesn't make it any less interesting to think. Shouldn't necessarily have to believe in something to make it worth discussing.

I certainly agree that you can--and frequently should--discuss things without believing in them, but that's not the same as having a side assigned to you. I'd assume that in the former, something makes it interesting enough to be discussed whereas in the latter, it's simply an exercise.

But we're different and that, in itself, is a good thing.