INTENSITY²

Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:01:45 PM

Title: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:01:45 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6560685.stm)

:(
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: duncvis on April 16, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
Friar Tuck already posted this one, but yeah. Guns eh? *waits for flame war to erupt again, and goes for popcorn*
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:05:37 PM
ah, sorry. only just read it, thought it was breaking news, but i see it's not now.

gun laws, hmm. funny how there's not many incidents like this in countries where guns are banned.

although london is getting pretty bad lately I suppose.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: duncvis on April 16, 2007, 04:07:22 PM
Plenty in the Northern cities too. The Bradford area seems to get them in spates, but its been quietish lately.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 16, 2007, 04:08:55 PM
There are almost 300 million Americans. There are about as many guns there as people. Considering that, these shootings are pretty rare, even if it's a tragedy every time it happens.

Wanna have Swedish or British gun laws in the US too? Only the criminals armed? I talked with a girl on a Swedish site before. She told me that her taser, that she has to have illegally due to our gun laws, has saved her from being raped once.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: duncvis on April 16, 2007, 04:10:26 PM
I'd love a taser.  :angel:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 16, 2007, 04:12:14 PM
I'd love a taser.  :angel:

I'd love it too. Typically, she's a foreign girl. A Swedish girl would usually be too ridiculously law-abiding to get herself a taser or know the people who could get her one.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:21:24 PM
Wanna have Swedish or British gun laws in the US too?  (http://Wanna have Swedish or British gun laws in the US too?)

no, i don't think it would be possible to implement, basically for the reasons you said.
But I *don't* want US gun laws in britain

Yes, you can currently get hold of guns in this country if you're part of the right kind of gang etc. and some police do have guns  here.
But with the number of twats who go out on a friday night to get beered up and start fights in town centres (or anyone else in some temporary violent rage), i would feel a lot better if there wasn't someone's dad's gun lying around that was just too tempting not to have a play with, or a local store dangling that temptation in their faces.

Tazers is another story though..
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 16, 2007, 04:26:48 PM
In our country, the police always has guns. Guns are not banned here for civilians, but there is no right to carry them for self-protection and the authorities are doing everything they can to stop people from getting guns legally. If I had been a criminal, I'd have no problem getting me a gun.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:37:45 PM
I don't know how hard it would be to get a gun if i was a determined criminal. I'm more worried about ordinary people having guns lying around when they're feeling a bit crazy or having a heated argument.  or even for self defence - a burglar doesn't necessarily deserve to get shot in the head, although it'd be tempting to shoot him if you were scared and had a gun.

saying that, my stepdad has a gun at home - for clay pigeon shooting.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 16, 2007, 04:46:39 PM
I could probably get a gun, if I just made an effort great enough. There are also a few European countries where guns are either pretty easy to get legally or illegally.

Why pity a burglar? And why stating that "ordinary people" couldn't handle guns? "Ordinary people" can handle cars, at least good enough to let most people who want have a driver's license.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 04:55:17 PM
mostly they could, but i can just imagine (even myself) in a particularly bad mood doing something stupid if a gun was too easily accessible.
cars are dangerous yes but their basic aim isn't to injure others or threaten to.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: richard on April 16, 2007, 05:23:25 PM
i would just like to go to a  fucking message board where nobody gives a crap about news headlines for once
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 16, 2007, 05:27:09 PM
 :violin:
set one up. a forum specifically for people who couldn't give a shit about the news.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: richard on April 16, 2007, 05:27:50 PM
stfu mrs beesely, george bushes dog
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 16, 2007, 06:57:24 PM
I'd love a taser.  :angel:
they aren't meant to be sex toys.
or, are they?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 16, 2007, 07:33:58 PM
Dangerous ones.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 16, 2007, 11:30:44 PM
ah, sorry. only just read it, thought it was breaking news, but i see it's not now.

gun laws, hmm. funny how there's not many incidents like this in countries where guns are banned.

although london is getting pretty bad lately I suppose.

And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 03:04:48 AM
ah, sorry. only just read it, thought it was breaking news, but i see it's not now.

gun laws, hmm. funny how there's not many incidents like this in countries where guns are banned.

although london is getting pretty bad lately I suppose.

And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

 :agreed:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2007, 03:30:50 AM
i would just like to go to a  fucking message board where nobody gives a crap about news headlines for once

Why wait? Send us a postcard when you're there.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2007, 03:36:32 AM
There are almost 300 million Americans. There are about as many guns there as people. Considering that, these shootings are pretty rare, even if it's a tragedy every time it happens.

Normally, this would be the reply where I proved you wrong by quoting some relevant statistics. However, I can't be arsed, we've had this discussion before, and besides, "pretty rare" s such a vague phrase that you didn't actually say anything that needs to be proven wrong.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: richard on April 17, 2007, 08:44:52 AM
i would just like to go to a  fucking message board where nobody gives a crap about news headlines for once
Why wait? Send us a postcard when you're there.
oh funny! i bought them from you
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 02:54:18 PM
Richard's rapier-like wit strikes home again.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 02:57:37 PM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 17, 2007, 03:39:26 PM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned

BINGO !!!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 03:44:57 PM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned

BINGO !!!

It's only myself and about 10 other Europeans that have understood why it should be a right to carry arms and not a privilege. The others have swallowed the anti-gun propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 17, 2007, 03:49:06 PM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned

BINGO !!!

It's only myself and about 10 other Europeans that have understood why it should be a right to carry arms and not a privilege. The others have swallowed the anti-gun propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.

You and only ten other Europeans? I guess now we know why the votes are so often against you. :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 03:52:24 PM
I can see the theoretical argument that  legalising guns might mean more control over firearms than criminalising it, thus driving it underground.

It's one valid argument but in practice I think it's outweighed by the dangers of legalising firearms. to go back to the drugs analogy, alcohol is legal here and causes more problems than any other drug. If you could buy a hit of heroin at your corner store i'm pretty sure there'd be a bigger hard drugs problem, even if it would be safer to get hold of for those determined to do it.

However i'm more in favour of legalising some drugs than guns. Cannabis for instance i think should be legalised (but that's just me being selfish)
You mainly harm yourself with misusing hard drugs, but misusing guns that's not the case.

Another point is that if you completely ban guns and a cop catches someone with some then there is no debate about whether he should maybe let them keep it, a decision he might regret later. Total banning means there's not question.  There is some gun crime in UK but proportionally it is still a pretty small problem I think(don't have any actual stats for that but that's my impression)

Anyway we don't need to look at theory - there are some pretty big experiments testing the theory and from recent results it's looking increasingly like legalising is a bad idea. 

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 03:54:41 PM
also is it me or does the perpetrator of the shootings look suspiciously like this guy?

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/upgraded-yo-ram.thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 04:03:59 PM
It's only myself and about 10 other Europeans that have understood why it should be a right to carry arms and not a privilege. The others have swallowed the anti-gun propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.

Seems there's an easy solution then.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 04:21:51 PM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned

BINGO !!!

It's only myself and about 10 other Europeans that have understood why it should be a right to carry arms and not a privilege. The others have swallowed the anti-gun propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.

You and only ten other Europeans? I guess now we know why the votes are so often against you. :P

Or might it be that I'm over-exaggerating as usual? 8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 04:24:06 PM
Anyway we don't need to look at theory - there are some pretty big experiments testing the theory and from recent results it's looking increasingly like legalising is a bad idea. 

It's society that's wrong. A couple of generations ago, guns were as free in the UK and Sweden as they still are in the US, and drugs were too, actually. But were there tremendous amounts of addicts and serial killers for that? No.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 04:30:53 PM
It's society that's wrong. A couple of generations ago, guns were as free in the UK and Sweden as they still are in the US, and drugs were too, actually. But were there tremendous amounts of addicts and serial killers for that? No.

Sure. But we may not be able to return to "the old ways." Society is going through a painful stage - and it's only going to get worse for quite a while.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 04:40:45 PM
It's society that's wrong. A couple of generations ago, guns were as free in the UK and Sweden as they still are in the US, and drugs were too, actually. But were there tremendous amounts of addicts and serial killers for that? No.
We also didn't need so many condoms when AIDS wasn't a big problem. 

The massive recent technological, cultural changes world right now would mean legalising guns, good or bad, would mean a different scenario than it would've been 100+ years ago.

eg I'm pretty sure that 100 years ago in britain the only drugs that would've been around would have been opium, maybe cannabis?  and I think it would have been a privilege of the rich. 

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 04:46:19 PM
Opium, cannabis, morphine, heroin. But it's correct that most people couldn't afford them. Most people could afford some second-hand revolver, though, but they didn't run around killing others just because of that.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 04:52:46 PM
yeah but they didn't have hiphop music back then
(joke)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 04:53:12 PM
Society was much smaller. People had places where they belonged, and people they cared about.
Now, we form such little tight insulations against the reality, and it is not healthy. Not easy to
change though. The world's been going to crap for quite a while, in terms of what humanity
is wired for.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 05:09:18 PM
word. seems like today you barely have to interact with anyone. i suppose in some ways i like that, but now that supermarkets have installed all these self-checkouts it really seems quite clinical and soulless. I still like going to the local market to get food sometimes as it just feels nicer somehow.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 05:11:29 PM
Same here. Which is one of the things that I wonder about AS - how much of it is really a matter of the modern environment?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 05:15:22 PM
I think it's a combination. the modern environment is both good and bad for us in different ways. But the AS is still there in some form regardless
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 05:19:32 PM
I'm suggesting that the isolation might be causing it. I know that, for my era, I had a very isolated
life - no other children around until school. Now, some of that might have been an effect of what
I was - I don't know for sure - but it strikes me that the anti-social upbringing made patterns. This
is really what I always assumed, until I started seeing some newspaper articles on Asperger's. Along
with some thoughts that I had autistic tendencies, but clearly didn't fit into that model.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 17, 2007, 05:24:21 PM
i dunno. i grew up an only child in the countryside without many around, but went to a big school and was often kind of isolated there. But i know other only children from the countryside who're not at all AS and you hear of AS people from large families in busy communities. so i think for me it's a combination - the AS made me more susceptible to other problems in my childhood
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 05:26:51 PM
Yeah. But now the isolation is greater in the cities than it once used to be.
I'm not saying that it's enough, just that it might be contributory. Eh, doesn't
much matter, I guess.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 05:30:49 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies. Since aspies prefer isolation, it would hardly happen that we would shoot anyone, unless they tried to get into our homes.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Callaway on April 17, 2007, 05:34:52 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

 ::)

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 05:35:47 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies. Since aspies prefer isolation, it would hardly happen that we would shoot anyone, unless they tried to get into our homes.  8)

Uh. Except for psychopaths like me?

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

Already been asked over on WP.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 05:41:00 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

 ::)

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

There was a guy here in Sweden in the early 90's that killed and wounded immigrants with guns that he had gotten illegally. From what I've heard he might've been an aspie. The Laser Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ausonius). You see, we're not total cowards, we even have a few serial killers. Though he was barely a typical Swede, aspie or not, he was of Swiss-German descent.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 17, 2007, 05:44:24 PM
Uh. Except for psychopaths like me?

No, you should have a rocket launcher. And a .50 calibre machine gun. I should too, of course.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: richard on April 17, 2007, 07:20:19 PM
We also didn't need so many condoms when AIDS wasn't a big problem.
oh no you didnt!!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 17, 2007, 09:20:32 PM
also is it me or does the perpetrator of the shootings look suspiciously like this guy?

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/upgraded-yo-ram.thumbnail.jpg)
they all look alike.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 09:37:11 PM
Damned bi-peds.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 17, 2007, 11:30:48 PM
Uh. Except for psychopaths like me?

No, you should have a rocket launcher. And a .50 calibre machine gun. I should too, of course.  8)

Nah, If you want a .50 cal, get a sniper riffle. .50 BMG ammo is $5 each minimum.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 17, 2007, 11:41:42 PM
Who cares about money, if you're about to rampage?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 17, 2007, 11:50:55 PM
Who cares about money, if you're about to rampage?

Because you want to get the most bang for your buck stupid!  :smarty:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 18, 2007, 12:08:48 AM
And I sure won't get that if I have to use something that doesn't spray a lot of ammo out at once.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 18, 2007, 12:17:47 AM
And I sure won't get that if I have to use something that doesn't spray a lot of ammo out at once.

You can get Autos in 5.56mm or 7.62mm hta are much cheaper to shoot. Besides, the cyclic rate on the M-2 .50 BMG is only about 400 rds a minute.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 18, 2007, 12:25:41 AM
Agreed, unless you want to take cars out or something.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2007, 01:18:49 AM
I'm suggesting that the isolation might be causing it. I know that, for my era, I had a very isolated
life - no other children around until school. Now, some of that might have been an effect of what
I was - I don't know for sure - but it strikes me that the anti-social upbringing made patterns. This
is really what I always assumed, until I started seeing some newspaper articles on Asperger's. Along
with some thoughts that I had autistic tendencies, but clearly didn't fit into that model.

As theories go, your's no worse than the others, like thimerol. Except for being wrong, of course, as research will show you if you care to look.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2007, 01:19:21 AM
Quote
And how is it that you have gun violence in a country where guns are banned ??

for the same reason that you can have a drug problem in countries where drugs are banned

BINGO !!!

It's only myself and about 10 other Europeans that have understood why it should be a right to carry arms and not a privilege. The others have swallowed the anti-gun propaganda, lock, stock and barrel.

You and only ten other Europeans? I guess now we know why the votes are so often against you. :P

Or might it be that I'm over-exaggerating as usual? 8)

Really?!? Noooo... :o
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2007, 01:26:20 AM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

 ::)

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

There was a guy here in Sweden in the early 90's that killed and wounded immigrants with guns that he had gotten illegally. From what I've heard he might've been an aspie. The Laser Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ausonius). You see, we're not total cowards, we even have a few serial killers. Though he was barely a typical Swede, aspie or not, he was of Swiss-German descent.

He wasn't autistic, as I recall it, but was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Callaway on April 18, 2007, 01:30:31 AM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

 ::)

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

There was a guy here in Sweden in the early 90's that killed and wounded immigrants with guns that he had gotten illegally. From what I've heard he might've been an aspie. The Laser Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ausonius). You see, we're not total cowards, we even have a few serial killers. Though he was barely a typical Swede, aspie or not, he was of Swiss-German descent.

He wasn't autistic, as I recall it, but was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.

Yes, that is what Litigious's link said.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 18, 2007, 01:34:39 AM
I'm suggesting that the isolation might be causing it. I know that, for my era, I had a very isolated
life - no other children around until school. Now, some of that might have been an effect of what
I was - I don't know for sure - but it strikes me that the anti-social upbringing made patterns. This
is really what I always assumed, until I started seeing some newspaper articles on Asperger's. Along
with some thoughts that I had autistic tendencies, but clearly didn't fit into that model.

As theories go, your's no worse than the others, like thimerol. Except for being wrong, of course, as research will show you if you care to look.

My understanding is that they don't know precisely how much of Autism is
purely genetic, much less Asperger's.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 18, 2007, 01:47:11 AM
I'm suggesting that the isolation might be causing it. I know that, for my era, I had a very isolated
life - no other children around until school. Now, some of that might have been an effect of what
I was - I don't know for sure - but it strikes me that the anti-social upbringing made patterns. This
is really what I always assumed, until I started seeing some newspaper articles on Asperger's. Along
with some thoughts that I had autistic tendencies, but clearly didn't fit into that model.

As theories go, your's no worse than the others, like thimerol. Except for being wrong, of course, as research will show you if you care to look.

My understanding is that they don't know precisely how much of Autism is
purely genetic, much less Asperger's.

But the research pretty clearly indicates that social factors, such as isolation, do no play a part. Autism and AS are both acquired prenatally or  early in life, before social factors such as isolation can do anything. Modern research suggests that AS is part of the autism spectrum, but also that it may not be meaningful to keep AS and HFA as separate dx's.

Remember, while not so long ago, autism was blamed on refrigerator mums, that theory was finally rejected. Today, no serious researcher would even mention it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Dexter Morgan on April 18, 2007, 09:50:03 AM
God fucking damnit.  Can the media please let these students get on with their lives?  Noboby fucking thinks this isn't a tragedy, but this isn't the fucking apocalypse and there aren't other stories to report.  And what is with this maroon ribbon "we are all Hokies" bullshit?  Do you really think you are doing them a favor reminding them of what happened?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: The_P on April 18, 2007, 12:20:27 PM
also is it me or does the perpetrator of the shootings look suspiciously like this guy?

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/upgraded-yo-ram.thumbnail.jpg)

My cousin, yo.

Btw, my AS made it do it. (Look at the enlarged forehead!)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 18, 2007, 02:47:48 PM
(http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/54553/1176846406.jpg)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 18, 2007, 02:49:54 PM
so that's how it is?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 18, 2007, 09:59:12 PM
News flash people .........

Cho Seung-Hui, was deemed by a court to be a danger to himself and others. He was ordered to seek psychiatric help.

According to Federal law, he shouldn't've been able to but the guns that he did. Virginia athorities dropped the ball and didn't put his court orders into the computer database.

Under current law, he should'nt have those guns.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 18, 2007, 10:21:46 PM

Remember, while not so long ago, autism was blamed on refrigerator mums, that theory was finally rejected. Today, no serious researcher would even mention it.

My folks had a refrigerator. How about yours?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 19, 2007, 02:08:35 AM

Remember, while not so long ago, autism was blamed on refrigerator mums, that theory was finally rejected. Today, no serious researcher would even mention it.

My folks had a refrigerator. How about yours?

Yeah, I think --

Waitasec... you think the researchers were wrong to drop the idea? :o
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 02:19:56 AM
Aren't there more and more cases confirmed every year?

Hell, I don't know, but I suspect that there are environmental
aspects which are growing. Pure speculation though.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 19, 2007, 04:33:29 AM
Aren't there more and more cases confirmed every year?

Yes. Why?

If your point is that there is an autism "epidemic", then no, there probably isn't one.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 19, 2007, 05:57:40 AM
Aren't there more and more cases confirmed every year?

Yes. Why?

If your point is that there is an autism "epidemic", then no, there probably isn't one.

+ for reality check.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Dexter Morgan on April 19, 2007, 08:45:26 AM
So, would you classify this under terrorism?  I guess not since he isn't muslim.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 19, 2007, 09:01:48 AM
So, would you classify this under terrorism?  I guess not since he isn't muslim.

Who are you talking to?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Dexter Morgan on April 19, 2007, 09:04:09 AM
So, would you classify this under terrorism?  I guess not since he isn't muslim.

Who are you talking to?
Anyone in general.  I remember the guy who ran over people at UNC with an SUV was labeled a terrorist.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 19, 2007, 10:07:27 AM
I don't consider this one a terrorist. Maybe someone does, but I don't.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 10:23:15 AM
News flash people .........

Cho Seung-Hui, was deemed by a court to be a danger to himself and others. He was ordered to seek psychiatric help.

According to Federal law, he shouldn't've been able to but the guns that he did. Virginia athorities dropped the ball and didn't put his court orders into the computer database.

Under current law, he should'nt have those guns.

There are always gun dealers selling illegally. It's not that unusual that gun dealers sell ammo here in Sweden without checking the license, though a license is needed to get ammo as well. There was one gun dealer in southern Sweden who provided half of the country's criminals with illegally imported guns. Sadly I didn't know about this guy before he was caught.  ;)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 19, 2007, 01:29:08 PM
There are always gun dealers selling illegally. It's not that unusual that gun dealers sell ammo here in Sweden without checking the license, though a license is needed to get ammo as well. There was one gun dealer in southern Sweden who provided half of the country's criminals with illegally imported guns. Sadly I didn't know about this guy before he was caught.  ;)

Yes, but this wasn't a case of the gun dealer selling him a gun illegaly. The guy who sold him the guns did the Federaly required computer back-ground check. Cho Seung-Hui passed the background check because Virginia athorities didn't send his court record into the correct data-base. If this had been done, he would've come up as mentaly unstable and would've been denied.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 01:34:40 PM
You don't have background checks in all states, if I'm not mistaken. There are a few states that are exempted from that law. In one way, I find that right, except in cases like this.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 19, 2007, 01:43:51 PM
You don't have background checks in all states, if I'm not mistaken. There are a few states that are exempted from that law. In one way, I find that right, except in cases like this.

Actually, all states have a background check. It's a Federal requirement. Some states have waiting periods and others don't. Virginia and other states have an instant computer background check that takes a couple of minutes. The only exemtion to this is firearms on the BATF's "Curio and Relic" list. I bought a Mauser broomhandle pistol that way.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 01:46:36 PM
I have kind of a snowball or domino theory: Once you start having any kind of gun control, you'll end up with gun laws of the kind we have in Europe.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 19, 2007, 01:52:53 PM
I have kind of a snowball or domino theory: Once you start having any kind of gun control, you'll end up with gun laws of the kind we have in Europe.

Yep !! Half the guns I bought in the Marines (Here in California no less!!) are now illegal under current state law. Luckilly I didn't register them, because then the state would know I had them !!!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 01:56:21 PM
We have compulsory gun registers since 1934 or so.  :( But it pisses me off that shotguns were unlicensed in Norway until 1990. I was 19 at that time and could have taken a trip and just bought one, but I didn't know that at that time.  :(
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 03:06:57 PM
Aren't there more and more cases confirmed every year?

Yes. Why?

If your point is that there is an autism "epidemic", then no, there probably isn't one.

My point is that the changing nature of our environment (and probably not 'fridges)
is possibly a contributory factor, both in the genetics itself (via reduced sexual selection
against the traits) as well as in the expression of these traits in the phenotype. Given
that Asperger's, in particular, is judged only by a spectrum relating to the phenotype,
it would seem likely that environmental factors have a significant effect upon the
prevalence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 19, 2007, 03:13:29 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

Sorry if this disturbs anyone, but I'm getting the feeling more and more with everything i read about this that he may well have been an undiagnosed aspie unfortunately.

Apart from all the loner stuff, the fact that he seems to have felt totally alone in the world, that he was obviously bullied, obsessiveness, reports he had poor social skills, he had speech problems as a child

Quote
His grandfather said Cho was "well-behaved" as a child in South Korea, but troubled his parents because of speech problems.
Quote
The great aunt of killer gunman Cho Seung-Hui says she feared he was autistic.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=49202 (http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=49202)

and on the video his voice sounds monotonous like Napoleon dynamite's.


Although i went on about gun laws i don't think that's the real problem here. I'm speculating but i think the real problem was that he was allowed to slip through the net without being diagnosed, without getting the psychiatric attention he obviously should have had - not just for other's safety but for his own mental health. I think if he'd got more help he wouldn't have done what he did.

I know most people don't like to talk about things like that and just want to say "he was just fucked up - just pure evil" but i just don't ever see things like that. I don't really think there's such a thing as "evil"

I really hope this isn't going to mean other aspie types are going to get a harder time if people see similarities to this guy
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 04:14:34 PM
It's funny you should say that about him being possibly AS - I read the same opinion in response to a Salon article
about him today and my heart sank

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/17/shooter/view/index1.html?show=all  (11th letter down)

I feel sorry for him, obviously for the victims too but he was evidently having problems coping with life and just villainising people like this just perpetuates the problem as nobody bothers to understand the mindset of these people and it just keeps happening

I loved the way they were so concerned that the 'coolest' girl in the school got shot first - so f-ing what?!

So it's better to kill the nerds cos no one will miss them or something?!

That whole attitude typifes to me why this type of thing happens in the first place!

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 19, 2007, 04:35:45 PM
So, would you classify this under terrorism?  I guess not since he isn't muslim.

No, he was not a terrorist.  However, terrorists do not have to be muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist).  It's sad that that isn't obvious to everyone, but it's obvious that it isn't.  :/
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 04:37:47 PM
Does that mean that Muslims have to be terrorists? I like to put things into nested classes, and since there is obviously an overlap between the two sets, which should I make the subset?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 04:43:46 PM
Well what was Timothy McVeigh then?

Not a Muslim, just a typical American?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 04:46:56 PM
My comment was facetious.

McVeigh was indeed a pretty normal fellow,
from what I understand. I pretty much agreed
with what he did though. Incidentally, a friend of
mine vaguely knew his sister.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 04:48:21 PM
Agreed with what he did in what way??

PS How do I get to be a PostWhore?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 04:51:18 PM
Agreed with what he did in what way??

PS How do I get to be a PostWhore?


Keep on posting.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 04:52:50 PM
I find it hard to post just for the sake of it tho.... :laugh:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 04:53:01 PM
I thought that he had valid complaints. I don't think that the
groundwork was laid to fix them, but the anti-government
beliefs were reasonable. I don't even really remember much
of what he stood for, but I do remember mostly agreeing, at
the time. Sometimes violence is the only way to get things
done.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 04:54:23 PM
Hmmmm

There's violence and violence tho.....
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 04:57:04 PM
I thought that he had valid complaints. I don't think that the
groundwork was laid to fix them, but the anti-government
beliefs were reasonable. I don't even really remember much
of what he stood for, but I do remember mostly agreeing, at
the time. Sometimes violence is the only way to get things
done.

Have you read my thread about the UNA-bomber? He wasn't that crazy either, on the contrary.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 04:57:45 PM
Eh, I'm pretty understanding of Bin Ladin's view too. As well as those who
want to hunt him down. If one actually believes in something, they should
take whatever actions are necessary to induce what is right.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 04:59:58 PM
Actually, those jerks in Waco were morons, as far as I'm concerned, but the FBI had no right whatsoever to attack them.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:06:01 PM
It's probably a lot easier to find some way of identifying with these people so long as it's not your relative or friend destroyed in the blast...



Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 19, 2007, 05:07:09 PM
Agreed with what he did in what way??

PS How do I get to be a PostWhore?

PWN richard!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 05:07:21 PM
Actually, those jerks in Waco were morons, as far as I'm concerned, but the FBI had no right whatsoever to attack them.

Yeah. By my interpretation of the Constitution, this was one of the clearest cases of a legitimate right to bear arms
that one could come up with.

It's probably a lot easier to find some way of identifying with these people so long as it's not your relative or friend destroyed in the blast...

Probably. I have understanding of those who hurt those I love too though. Doesn't mean I don't want to kill them brutally,
but I can usually at least see where they're coming from.


Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 19, 2007, 05:11:33 PM
It's funny you should say that about him being possibly AS - I read the same opinion in response to a Salon article
about him today and my heart sank

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/17/shooter/view/index1.html?show=all  (11th letter down)

I feel sorry for him, obviously for the victims too but he was evidently having problems coping with life and just villainising people like this just perpetuates the problem as nobody bothers to understand the mindset of these people and it just keeps happening

I loved the way they were so concerned that the 'coolest' girl in the school got shot first - so f-ing what?!

So it's better to kill the nerds cos no one will miss them or something?!

That whole attitude typifes to me why this type of thing happens in the first place!
one of my proudest moments was getting a letter published in viz once. it seems kind of appropriate here:

"Has anyone noticed that whenever a young person dies in a tragic accident or murder they're always described as 'bright, popular, full of life and with their whole lives ahead of them'? As an exceedingly dull individual with few friends and no prospects i certainly feel a lot safer"


Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 05:11:50 PM
It's probably a lot easier to find some way of identifying with these people so long as it's not your relative or friend destroyed in the blast...


Actually, in the Waco case, it was the authorities killing and destroying....
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:13:22 PM
Looks to me like Timothy McVeigh's mind got f-ed by his experiences in the Gulf coupled with all the metamphetamine he took aftwerwards
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 19, 2007, 05:14:14 PM
Actually, those jerks in Waco were morons, as far as I'm concerned, but the FBI had no right whatsoever to attack them.

Yeah. By my interpretation of the Constitution, this was one of the clearest cases of a legitimate right to bear arms
that one could come up with.

I'm really glad that they killed a lot of Fed scums before they were killed themselves. Here in Europe they'd been slaughter sheeps only.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:16:40 PM
I'm not familiar with the Waco case - need to research details

Lol Spag!

I've noticed that it's the 'She had everything to live for' types who often die tragically young - the rest of us are doomed to see out our miserable, useless lives in full I guess...

What always puzzles me are the very successful types who kill themselves seemingly out of the blue, as if the pressure's all too much for them or something, or perhaps being at the top of your game isn't all it's cracked up to be...
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 05:22:34 PM
I'm really glad that they killed a lot of Fed scums before they were killed themselves. Here in Europe they'd been slaughter sheeps only.

Yeah. But the real decision makers just don't get touched. I mean, the complaint about Reno was that it was done incompetently,
no one here was questioning seriously (on the media) that these people had a right to be an armed community.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:23:36 PM
Do you mean FBI by 'Fed Scums'?

I have an admiration for the FBI for some reason - they always seemed very AS-like in their pedantic determination to me (that's just the impression I've got from films/The Sopranos tho...)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 05:25:31 PM
Didn't really matter WHICH tools of the government were
going in and destroying people's rights did it?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:26:29 PM
Suppose not

I need to find out more about it all before can really comment
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 05:28:05 PM
The problem is that it's always these fringe groups that are
standing this way. So, they tend to be far right militia, or
religious cults. Makes it harder for people to sympathize.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: esme456 on April 19, 2007, 05:31:56 PM
Why did the FBI get involved in the first place?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 19, 2007, 05:53:54 PM
i thenk it was ATF.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 19, 2007, 05:59:13 PM
FBI went in on the assault - I remember that.

Why? Because they were told to do so. They
can be called in by local police or other agencies.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Callaway on April 19, 2007, 09:10:21 PM
I think guns should be banned for NTs but free for aspies.

I'm sort of holding my breath hoping that nobody says the shooter was an Aspie.  The news media keeps calling him a loner.

Sorry if this disturbs anyone, but I'm getting the feeling more and more with everything i read about this that he may well have been an undiagnosed aspie unfortunately.

Apart from all the loner stuff, the fact that he seems to have felt totally alone in the world, that he was obviously bullied, obsessiveness, reports he had poor social skills, he had speech problems as a child

Quote
His grandfather said Cho was "well-behaved" as a child in South Korea, but troubled his parents because of speech problems.
Quote
The great aunt of killer gunman Cho Seung-Hui says she feared he was autistic.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=49202 (http://www.reuters.com/news/video/videoStory?videoId=49202)

and on the video his voice sounds monotonous like Napoleon dynamite's.


Although i went on about gun laws i don't think that's the real problem here. I'm speculating but i think the real problem was that he was allowed to slip through the net without being diagnosed, without getting the psychiatric attention he obviously should have had - not just for other's safety but for his own mental health. I think if he'd got more help he wouldn't have done what he did.

I know most people don't like to talk about things like that and just want to say "he was just fucked up - just pure evil" but i just don't ever see things like that. I don't really think there's such a thing as "evil"

I really hope this isn't going to mean other aspie types are going to get a harder time if people see similarities to this guy


It's not that I mind if we speculate whether or not he was an Aspie, I just hoped the news media would not pick up on that idea, because of exactly what could happen to other Aspies by association, just like you said you hope as well.  Maybe they could consider people on the autistic spectrum too unstable to buy guns or live in society with the so-called 'normal' people.

I wish he had gotten more help after he stalked those two young ladies.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 19, 2007, 09:46:59 PM
Do you mean FBI by 'Fed Scums'?

I have an admiration for the FBI for some reason - they always seemed very AS-like in their pedantic determination to me (that's just the impression I've got from films/The Sopranos tho...)

Actually, The FBI has elements that are very corrupt. They sometimes act like they're the KGB.  :-\
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 20, 2007, 12:43:46 AM
No surprise there, Scrap. You have a president that sometimes acts as if he ruled over the Soviet Union.  :-\
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 20, 2007, 01:16:17 AM
As I said, in Europe the people in Waco could have made no resistance. Now they at least killead a great many of "underlings" as Dec called them. That's the way all power-abusing authority people should go.  >:D
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 20, 2007, 03:47:44 AM
As I said, in Europe the people in Waco could have made no resistance. Now they at least killead a great many of "underlings" as Dec called them. That's the way all power-abusing authority people should go.  >:D
''

not enough.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Tom/Mutate on April 20, 2007, 08:20:10 AM
It said on the front page of todays paper that Cho was diagnosed with Autism as a child.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Teejay on April 20, 2007, 08:24:04 AM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Teejay on April 20, 2007, 08:25:09 AM
It said on the front page of todays paper that Cho was diagnosed with Autism as a child.

I had a fear that Cho guy was on the spectrum, I had a look at pictures of him, certainly autistic. This is not good for the ASD community, I feel it is Will Freund over all again.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 20, 2007, 08:50:16 AM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:

The cowardly politicians and reporters (usually leftists) just love to scare people for guns. Guns aren't dangerous. Morons are dangerous.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 20, 2007, 09:04:14 AM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:

The cowardly politicians and reporters (usually leftists) just love to scare people for guns. Guns aren't dangerous. Morons are dangerous.

Morons aren't dangerous. Smart psychopaths are dangerous.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 20, 2007, 09:35:03 AM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:

The cowardly politicians and reporters (usually leftists) just love to scare people for guns. Guns aren't dangerous. Morons are dangerous.

Morons aren't dangerous. Smart psychopaths are dangerous.

Shhh, don't reveal the secret.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lurk Hurk Gurk on April 20, 2007, 11:55:54 AM
Morons aren't dangerous.
Morons can be made dangerous.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 20, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:

Gee, I wonder why these people call for more control... Could it be because once again, whatever precautions are in place didn't work? Nah, that can't be. It's obviously another ploy by the pacifist lefties. ::)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 20, 2007, 03:28:47 PM
Everytime some whacko shoots some people in the USA and elswhere, certain people call for tightening of gun laws. I hate it when innocent lawful gun owners are punished for the deeds of a few whacko's.  :finger:

Gee, I wonder why these people call for more control... Could it be because once again, whatever precautions are in place didn't work? Nah, that can't be. It's obviously another ploy by the pacifist lefties. ::)

You forgot "cowardly". And the Worldwide Mad Deadly Gangster Communist Computer God and the hangman rope sneak underlings.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 21, 2007, 06:32:11 PM
No surprise there, Scrap. You have a president that sometimes acts as if he ruled over the Soviet Union.  :-\

The corruption in the FBI goes back to J.Edgar Hoover and the 1940's. He used the power of the FBI to dig up dirt on politicians and blackmail them into letting him do as he pleased. He was the biggest bully in American government for 40+ years.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 21, 2007, 06:33:42 PM
No surprise there, Scrap. You have a president that sometimes acts as if he ruled over the Soviet Union.  :-\

The corruption in the FBI goes back to J.Edgar Hoover and the 1940's. He used the power of the FBI to dig up dirt on politicians and blackmail them into letting him do as he pleased. He was the biggest bully in American government for 40+ years.
and he was a drag queen.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: duncvis on April 22, 2007, 04:30:32 AM
No surprise there, Scrap. You have a president that sometimes acts as if he ruled over the Soviet Union.  :-\

The corruption in the FBI goes back to J.Edgar Hoover and the 1940's. He used the power of the FBI to dig up dirt on politicians and blackmail them into letting him do as he pleased. He was the biggest bully in American government for 40+ years.
and he was a drag queen.

Don't forget COINTELPRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro)...
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 22, 2007, 07:12:06 AM
As Eddie Izzard says
Quote
"Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that kill you
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 22, 2007, 07:19:23 AM
It said on the front page of todays paper that Cho was diagnosed with Autism as a child.

fuck.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 22, 2007, 07:27:16 AM
It said on the front page of todays paper that Cho was diagnosed with Autism as a child.

fuck.

it's not *that surprising is it?
did you see his video?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 22, 2007, 07:54:35 AM
As Eddie Izzard says
Quote
"Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that kill you


Tankity tank. Tankity tank.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Dexter Morgan on April 22, 2007, 08:17:26 AM
I'm sure Autism Speaks is salivating as of now
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 22, 2007, 08:20:31 AM
I'm sure Autism Speaks is salivating as of now
so, does it sound like a gurgle when they speak, thanks to the salava.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 22, 2007, 09:38:53 AM
As Eddie Izzard says
Quote
"Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that kill you


Tankity tank. Tankity tank.

I learned that joke "tankity tank tank."
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 22, 2007, 05:05:28 PM
So was it bangity bang bang, as well?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 22, 2007, 05:45:46 PM
This shooter was a South Korean national who commited the largest mass shooting in US history.....

Can't Americans win at ANYTHING these days ?? ?? ??
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 22, 2007, 05:49:46 PM
This shooter was a South Korean national who commited the largest mass shooting in US history.....

Can't Americans win at ANYTHING these days ?? ?? ??

We gave up on shooting. Bombing is more dramatic.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 22, 2007, 06:39:56 PM
So was it bangity bang bang, as well?

And stabity stab stab.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 22, 2007, 08:59:42 PM
You know, I think that's how I heard it, as well.
But, when you get to my age, you'll understand
that things slip away. Much more important things
than jokes.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: El on April 23, 2007, 05:56:39 AM
You know, I think that's how I heard it, as well.
But, when you get to my age, you'll understand
that things slip away. Much more important things
than jokes.
such as?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 23, 2007, 09:11:32 PM
i guess he didn't get the kind of support/understanding from his parents and other people that he needed and that contributed heavily to him turning into such a basket case. the thing to blame here is a dysfunctional world.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 23, 2007, 10:11:12 PM
i guess he didn't get the kind of support/understanding from his parents and other people that he needed and that contributed heavily to him turning into such a basket case. the thing to blame here is a dysfunctional world.
or that some people are just wired differently.

he was an adult who made his own choices.  lets not coddle his behaviour.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 23, 2007, 10:17:24 PM
You know, I think that's how I heard it, as well.
But, when you get to my age, you'll understand
that things slip away. Much more important things
than jokes.
such as?

My whole life more or less slipped away when my wife left.

The calculus always slips away. Damn knows what else. Lots of
little bits of information. One that I recently discovered was that
I forgot a lot of C++ in the two damned years that I've been at UO.
Damned Java just makes one forget all the important little tricks.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 02:17:52 AM
i guess he didn't get the kind of support/understanding from his parents and other people that he needed and that contributed heavily to him turning into such a basket case. the thing to blame here is a dysfunctional world.
or that some people are just wired differently.

he was an adult who made his own choices.  lets not coddle his behaviour.

i'm not coddling anybody, and if you read what i said you'll see i said not having the support he needed, that contributed to what happened, not that it alone caused it. :tantrum:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 28, 2007, 07:15:38 AM
i guess he didn't get the kind of support/understanding from his parents and other people that he needed and that contributed heavily to him turning into such a basket case. the thing to blame here is a dysfunctional world.
or that some people are just wired differently.

he was an adult who made his own choices.  lets not coddle his behaviour.

i'm not coddling anybody, and if you read what i said you'll see i said not having the support he needed, that contributed to what happened, not that it alone caused it. :tantrum:

or...
you are just so cute when you get angry.  i just want to gobble you up.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 07:20:31 AM
I like that smiley.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on April 28, 2007, 07:33:43 AM
i guess he didn't get the kind of support/understanding from his parents and other people that he needed and that contributed heavily to him turning into such a basket case. the thing to blame here is a dysfunctional world.
or that some people are just wired differently.

he was an adult who made his own choices.  lets not coddle his behaviour.

i'm not coddling anybody, and if you read what i said you'll see i said not having the support he needed, that contributed to what happened, not that it alone caused it. :tantrum:

or...
you are just so cute when you get angry.  i just want to gobble you up.

Hey, I miss you, too Milla. You should come around to play, more often!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 08:23:06 AM
why gosh darnit, i feel so warm and fuzzy inside now. :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 28, 2007, 08:30:49 AM
why gosh darnit, i feel so warm and fuzzy inside now. :P
whew.

another shooting spree avoided.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 08:32:39 AM
why gosh darnit, i feel so warm and fuzzy inside now. :P
whew.

another shooting spree avoided.

No, guns are banned in the UK and Milla is probably law-abiding, so she wouldn't be able to get a gun anyway.  ;)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 08:35:17 AM
i live in Ireland though which is not exactly UK, i dunno about the laws here though... but reading about your humongous pill stash and knowing you live in a country that is next to the country i USED to live in... that kinda makes me want to go on that shooting spree after all. :smurf:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 08:36:30 AM
i live in Ireland though which is not exactly UK, i dunno about the laws here though... but reading about your humongous pill stash and knowing you live in a country that is next to the country i USED to live in... that kinda makes me want to go on that shooting spree after all. :smurf:

I think Ireland has harsh gun laws but not as harsh as Britain. Britain actually has harsher gun laws than Sweden!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 28, 2007, 08:40:09 AM
i live in Ireland though which is not exactly UK, i dunno about the laws here though... but reading about your humongous pill stash and knowing you live in a country that is next to the country i USED to live in... that kinda makes me want to go on that shooting spree after all. :smurf:

I think Ireland has harsh gun laws but not as harsh as Britain. Britain actually has harsher gun laws than Sweden!

I think Britian and Australia have the strickest gun laws next to North Korea.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on April 28, 2007, 08:49:02 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 08:51:52 AM
i live in Ireland though which is not exactly UK, i dunno about the laws here though... but reading about your humongous pill stash and knowing you live in a country that is next to the country i USED to live in... that kinda makes me want to go on that shooting spree after all. :smurf:

I think Ireland has harsh gun laws but not as harsh as Britain. Britain actually has harsher gun laws than Sweden!

I think Britian and Australia have the strickest gun laws next to North Korea.

Yep. Hand guns are totally banned for all "ordinary" citizens and air guns are licensed! You can get 3 years in prison in Britain and Australia for an unlicensed air gun. In Sweden you usually get 6 months for illegal possesion of a real gun. Shame on supposedly democratic countries to have such gun laws anyway.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 08:54:26 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.

If you don't stand up for your rights soon, you might end up like us poor Europeans and the Aussies. Guns will either be banned, or, they will be allowed, but not in self-defense, which makes the legal possesion of a gun meaningless.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 28, 2007, 08:55:54 AM
why can't everyone just learn martial arts for defence instead
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on April 28, 2007, 09:01:54 AM
why can't everyone just learn martial arts for defence instead

Good point. Studying martial arts improved my competition shooting abilities, tremedously. Actually made me into a contender.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 28, 2007, 09:01:55 AM
why can't everyone just learn martial arts for defence instead

Because Jiu-Jitsu does a shitty job of stopping bullets.  ::) durr
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on April 28, 2007, 09:08:43 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.

If you don't stand up for your rights soon, you might end up like us poor Europeans and the Aussies. Guns will either be banned, or, they will be allowed, but not in self-defense, which makes the legal possesion of a gun meaningless.

Totally agree, but with the two main parties, both, attacking our varoious rights, it's kind of hard to stop. We need a successful independent candidate for a few years, maybe, but that is not even likely.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 28, 2007, 09:15:04 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.

If you don't stand up for your rights soon, you might end up like us poor Europeans and the Aussies. Guns will either be banned, or, they will be allowed, but not in self-defense, which makes the legal possesion of a gun meaningless.

Totally agree, but with the two main parties, both, attacking our varoious rights, it's kind of hard to stop. We need a successful independent candidate for a few years, maybe, but that is not even likely.

The Libertarian party should attack the other two conventions with guns blazing  :litigious: so we can have some new blod in DC.  8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 28, 2007, 12:42:16 PM
Or at least some blood.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Litigious on April 28, 2007, 12:49:48 PM
Aaahhh, blood! :litigious: :arrr:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on April 28, 2007, 03:54:49 PM
why can't everyone just learn martial arts for defence instead

Because Jiu-Jitsu does a shitty job of stopping bullets.  ::) durr

Didn't you ever see "Remo"?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 07:07:21 PM
didn't you ever see the matrix? 8)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 28, 2007, 07:10:48 PM
didn't you ever see the matrix? 8)
i'm still looking for waldo?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 07:26:17 PM
there you found him.
(http://www.lavidadelosgorilas.org/archives/images/waldo.gif)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: McGiver on April 28, 2007, 07:29:58 PM
so tell me about this matrix business....
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 28, 2007, 07:38:38 PM
well Keanu and the other peeps are all cool and wear sunglasses inside and long coats that you'd think would get in the way when fighting but apparently not, and they can freeze bullets and other cool stuff and they act all cool and stuff. yeah. that's about it.

if you wanna see a less sterile and more interesting and way different film with a similar basic idea, try Cronenberg's eXistenZ.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 28, 2007, 09:36:37 PM
well Keanu and the other peeps are all cool and wear sunglasses inside and long coats that you'd think would get in the way when fighting but apparently not, and they can freeze bullets and other cool stuff and they act all cool and stuff. yeah. that's about it.

if you wanna see a less sterile and more interesting and way different film with a similar basic idea, try Cronenberg's eXistenZ.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that self defense without bullets is the stuff of pure fantasy.  ;) :police:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on April 28, 2007, 10:56:56 PM
well Keanu and the other peeps are all cool and wear sunglasses inside and long coats that you'd think would get in the way when fighting but apparently not, and they can freeze bullets and other cool stuff and they act all cool and stuff. yeah. that's about it.

if you wanna see a less sterile and more interesting and way different film with a similar basic idea, try Cronenberg's eXistenZ.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that self defense without bullets is the stuff of pure fantasy.  ;) :police:

:LMAO:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Peter on April 29, 2007, 12:12:59 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.

If you don't stand up for your rights soon, you might end up like us poor Europeans and the Aussies. Guns will either be banned, or, they will be allowed, but not in self-defense, which makes the legal possesion of a gun meaningless.

Totally agree, but with the two main parties, both, attacking our varoious rights, it's kind of hard to stop. We need a successful independent candidate for a few years, maybe, but that is not even likely.

Does anyone actually think about their voting choices?  Or do they just robotically vote for whoever their peers voted for?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Callaway on April 29, 2007, 12:15:19 AM
They got away with some pretty anti-American legislation in DC for a while, though.
Something about shooting people not being among our rights.

If you don't stand up for your rights soon, you might end up like us poor Europeans and the Aussies. Guns will either be banned, or, they will be allowed, but not in self-defense, which makes the legal possesion of a gun meaningless.

Totally agree, but with the two main parties, both, attacking our varoious rights, it's kind of hard to stop. We need a successful independent candidate for a few years, maybe, but that is not even likely.

Does anyone actually think about their voting choices?  Or do they just robotically vote for whoever their peers voted for?

People think deeply about their voting choices.  They research all the options and choose the best one.  At least that has been my experience.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 29, 2007, 12:36:41 AM
People think deeply about their voting choices.  They research all the options and choose the best one.  At least that has been my experience.

Yes, but as South Park pointed out, most elections are between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Callaway on April 29, 2007, 12:43:36 AM
People think deeply about their voting choices.  They research all the options and choose the best one.  At least that has been my experience.

Yes, but as South Park pointed out, most elections are between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.

That is often an excellent point.  In those cases, the choice might come down to the lesser of two evils.  I was not thrilled with Kerry/Edwards in the last Presidential election, but I thought them less likely to erode ordinary people's civil rights the way I thought W had done and would continue to do.  He just used the 9-11 tragedy as an excuse to do even more of what he already was inclined to do when he was elected.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 29, 2007, 12:50:11 AM
If "W" had actually managed to accomplish something with the massive government power grab that was the Patriot act, I might be a little less pissed at him.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Peter on April 29, 2007, 01:10:30 AM
People think deeply about their voting choices.  They research all the options and choose the best one.  At least that has been my experience.

Yes, but as South Park pointed out, most elections are between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.

That is often an excellent point.  In those cases, the choice might come down to the lesser of two evils.  I was not thrilled with Kerry/Edwards in the last Presidential election, but I thought them less likely to erode ordinary people's civil rights the way I thought W had done and would continue to do.  He just used the 9-11 tragedy as an excuse to do even more of what he already was inclined to do when he was elected.

So why do Americans always end up with such shit choices to think deeply about voting for?  Surely, out of a population of several hundred million, George W. Bush and John Kerry weren't the most able people for the job.  What's the point in democracy if it always boils down to an elite minority providing the public with two similarly awful candidates to vote for?  And when's the public going to realise they're being taken for a ride and stop perpetuating the two-party system?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 29, 2007, 01:13:00 AM
People think deeply about their voting choices.  They research all the options and choose the best one.  At least that has been my experience.

Yes, but as South Park pointed out, most elections are between a Turd Sandwich and a Giant Douche.

That is often an excellent point.  In those cases, the choice might come down to the lesser of two evils.  I was not thrilled with Kerry/Edwards in the last Presidential election, but I thought them less likely to erode ordinary people's civil rights the way I thought W had done and would continue to do.  He just used the 9-11 tragedy as an excuse to do even more of what he already was inclined to do when he was elected.

So why do Americans always end up with such shit choices to think deeply about voting for?  Surely, out of a population of several hundred million, George W. Bush and John Kerry weren't the most able people for the job.  What's the point in democracy if it always boils down to an elite minority providing the public with two similarly awful candidates to vote for?  And when's the public going to realise they're being taken for a ride and stop perpetuating the two-party system?

This isn't unique to a two party system. You have your fair share of shit politicians in Britian. Any system can get corrupted.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Scrapheap on April 29, 2007, 01:21:09 AM
http://men.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4766010&GT1=9311 (http://men.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4766010&GT1=9311)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on April 29, 2007, 04:44:09 AM
Does anyone actually think about their voting choices?  Or do they just robotically vote for whoever their peers voted for?

I have no peers. Unfortunately, in the US, one  is discouraged
from voting for the person that they really want, unless it is one
of the frontrunners.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 29, 2007, 06:34:57 AM
i missed the end of that stupid douche/turdsandwich ep cuz Paramount had a fuckin seizure. >:( i wonder if it's on youtube.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: In The spaGhetto on April 29, 2007, 07:21:08 AM
i missed the end of that stupid douche/turdsandwich ep cuz Paramount had a fuckin seizure. >:( i wonder if it's on youtube.

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/2/157 (http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/2/157)

under "douche and turd" on season 8 ;)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: SovaNu on April 29, 2007, 07:59:57 AM
dude! you gotta be kidding me! :yikes:

thanks :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 16, 2017, 09:23:20 PM
... and a Millennial was the triggerman.   ::)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Queen Victoria on July 17, 2017, 09:22:06 AM
This article is in today's Times-Picayune newspaper.  It may be upsetting to some, just letting you know. 

HOUSTON -- Doctors didn't expect Nick Tullier to survive after a gunman shot him in the head, stomach and shoulder during an ambush that killed three other law enforcement officers last summer in Baton Rouge.

A year later, the 42-year-old sheriff's deputy is still defying the odds and the grim prognosis issued after the July 17 attack (photos).

Tullier's doctors initially feared he would die within hours. Later, they warned his family that brain damage could leave him in a vegetative state for the rest of his life. After months in a Baton Rouge hospital, Tullier was conscious when he was transferred in November to a Houston rehabilitation hospital, but his arms and legs appeared to be paralyzed.

Today, the father of two sons can nod his head to answer questions with a yes or no. Grueling physical therapy has helped restore some movement in his limbs. He can smile and even laugh. And he recently spoke his first word since the shooting, an utterance that sounded like "hello."

"He's got a very, very long road ahead of him, but he hasn't given up," said his father, James. "He's going to fight."

James Tullier posts daily Facebook updates on his son's condition from TIRR Memorial Hermann hospital, where he and Nick's mother, Mary, and fiancee, Danielle McNicoll, take turns watching over him. They moved here with him from Baton Rouge and will stay here as long as he does.

"Wherever Nick is at, that's where our home is," his father said. "Nick is our world right now."

On the Sunday morning of the shooting, Tullier was working the day shift for the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff's Office. Less than two weeks had passed since a white Baton Rouge police officer shot and killed Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man. Racial tensions in the city were still simmering.

Tullier and another deputy were eating breakfast when they heard a radio call about an armed man near a convenience store about a mile away. Gavin Long, a 29-year-old black military veteran from Kansas City, Missouri, had already fatally wounded two Baton Rouge police officers and a sheriff's deputy by the time Tullier and Sgt. Bruce Simmons arrived, according to a district attorney's report.

Once on the scene, Tullier checked on an empty rental car, unaware it was the gunman's. He was walking back to his patrol vehicle when Long shot him in the stomach from nearby woods. Long shot him twice more after he climbed into his vehicle.

The gunman also wounded Simmons before tactical officers showed up and killed the attacker, who left behind a note calling his actions a "necessary evil" so he could inflict "destruction" on police officers.

When Tullier came to Houston eight months ago, his legs were frozen in an extended position. His arms were locked into his chest, his fingers curled up tight.

The therapy is painful. At the start of one recent session, occupational therapist Ashley Broadwater asked him, "You ready to work today?"

McNicoll, who often assists during the therapy, crouched behind him and held his forehead as he pushed a table toward Broadwater.

"Think about working those arms. Push it out as far as you can," the therapist said.

McNicoll tapped her fiance's arms to encourage him as she and Broadwater counted to 10.

Later in the session, Journey's "Don't Stop Believin'" blared over a cassette recorder as he slowly moved his left hand to push a red button that started and stopped the music.

McNicoll said her fiance has come a long way. It used to take a couple of people to hold him upright on a mat or at the edge of a bed.

"And now some days, for the most part, he can hold himself up," she said.

McNicoll sometimes sees a look in his eyes that suggests he wants to say something. He tries to mouth words, but can't vocalize them. His doctors have not ruled out the possibility that, someday, speaking could be his primary form of communication again.

Dr. Sunil Kothari, one of the doctors at the Houston hospital, said Tullier's cognitive abilities have "outstripped" his physical abilities.

"There's more that he wants to do, knows in some sense how to do, and just can't execute because of his neuromuscular and other impairments," he said.

Walking without assistance also remains a possibility down the line, his doctor said.

Since the shooting, Tullier has had more than 15 surgeries, including one this week. In a Facebook post late Wednesday, James Tulllier said his son had surgery on his abdomen and a surgeon was "pleased with the results." However, Nick had a seizure after the surgery and was in severe pain, his father wrote.

James Tullier said the family used to talk to doctors outside his hospital room. Now they discuss his son's care in his presence.

"He wants to know, and he wants to be involved in decisions," he said.

Tullier's father declined to discuss the shooting. Attorneys recently filed a federal lawsuit on his son's behalf against Black Lives Matter and several leaders of the movement. The suit accuses the activists of inciting violence that led to Long's deadly attack.

The shooting was not the only tragedy for Tullier's family last summer. Homes belonging to James Tullier and his other two sons were wrecked by catastrophic flooding from an August storm that dumped as much as 2 feet of rain on parts of southeast Louisiana.

James Tullier's oldest son is nearly finished rebuilding, but his middle son is far from done. James and Mary Tullier are still at odds with their insurance company.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on July 30, 2017, 10:18:46 AM
You need more guns to be safe.  You don't have enough guns.

All the evidence clearly shows that the more guns you have in a society, the safer you are.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on July 30, 2017, 01:38:34 PM
You need more guns to be safe.  You don't have enough guns.

All the evidence clearly shows that the more guns you have in a society, the safer you are.

 :lol1:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on July 30, 2017, 04:10:08 PM
I'm pretty sure the evidence shows we just need more rich people.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 31, 2017, 01:03:36 PM
You need more guns to be safe.  You don't have enough guns.

All the evidence clearly shows that the more guns you have in a society, the safer you are.

More guns in the hands of the right people, yes.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: lutra on July 31, 2017, 03:13:37 PM
Think fouracedeal is wrong in your quote, scrap. Without any context, he shows idiotic ignorance there, imo. Trump-US-styley, I'd say.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 31, 2017, 03:17:57 PM
He was being sarcastic, I got that.

It's not the first time that he's said something sarcastically that was actually close to true.

His political beliefs cause him to have mental blind spots.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Arya Quinn on July 31, 2017, 09:38:55 PM
You need more guns to be safe.  You don't have enough guns.

All the evidence clearly shows that the more guns you have in a society, the safer you are.

Holy shit you guys, don't go to Iceland. You'll get killed due to not having any guns and thus, being completely unsafe.  :GA:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 31, 2017, 09:48:45 PM
:LMAO:

Iceland has one of the higher gun ownership rates in Europe.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Arya Quinn on July 31, 2017, 10:01:08 PM
:LMAO:

Iceland has one of the higher gun ownership rates in Europe.

15th in the world, actually.

The population is 300,000, so if you're talking number of guns per capita (there 90,000 estimated guns in the country) it's high. Heck, in England the gun per capita is 6.6 per 100 people. In a country of over 53.01 million people.

It's not a problem of the guns themselves, it's access to them. In both England and Iceland there are a shitload of restrictions on who can get a gun and who can't. Most of the people who own a gun in England are people in the countryside, farmers and the like. In Iceland the list of restrictions is also high.

Guns have sadly become a part of the American culture and you people can just pick up a gun whenever from assault weapons to pump-action shotguns. Iceland and England can't actually do that. As well as restrictions on who can get guns, the type of gun is also a thing.

Of course, your congress will vote against any attempt to dare change that. To dare put any restriction on. 'Cause gun nuts would rather see their own children gunned down before they lose their precious guns. Or at least it seems that way. I don't know whatever other way to explain what could be best described as complete, gun-crazed insanity.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on August 01, 2017, 09:56:05 AM
:LMAO:

Iceland has one of the higher gun ownership rates in Europe.

15th in the world, actually.

Europe isn't the world, fucking dumbass.   :hahaha:

The highest gun ownership rates in Europe are in Scandinavia, which with the exception of Sweden in recent years (due to sand niggers), have the lowest crime rates in Europe.

So no, there's no direct statistical relationship between gun ownership rates and gun violence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on August 02, 2017, 09:33:28 PM
Wrong. Serbia has the highest gun ownership rate in Europe.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on August 03, 2017, 04:14:59 AM
I love watching the gun-ownership = safety argument.  It's like watching bald people fight over a comb.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on August 03, 2017, 04:17:01 AM
I'd start believing the gun lobby if I saw them under the railway bridges handing out free guns to the poor and homeless.  Until then they're just practising the politics of "fuck you buddy".
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on August 03, 2017, 07:19:14 PM
I love watching the gun-ownership = safety argument.  It's like watching bald people fight over a comb.
The comb analogy is a good one, and sometimes feel similar when watching males reason within topics of violence. Males account for about 90% of homicide perpetrators, and about 80% of violent crime in general.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on August 03, 2017, 08:15:55 PM
Wrong. Serbia has the highest gun ownership rate in Europe.

Does their gun ownership rate show a statistical relationship to firearm homicide rates?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on August 03, 2017, 08:17:51 PM
I love watching the gun-ownership = safety argument. 

If you live in high crime areas or in rural areas where the cops are half an hour away, you want a gun, specifically a semi-auto 12 gauge.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on August 03, 2017, 10:21:44 PM
I'd start believing the gun lobby if I saw them under the railway bridges handing out free guns to the poor and homeless.

Why on earth would they do that? Didn't I just tell you the poor are the ones doing the killing?  :aff:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on August 04, 2017, 07:58:39 PM
I love watching the gun-ownership = safety argument.  It's like watching bald people fight over a comb.

It is hilarious, agreed. They are advocating a tool specifically designed to kill people with and saying that society will somehow be a safer place if you have more of them.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on August 04, 2017, 09:45:10 PM
I love watching the gun-ownership = safety argument.  It's like watching bald people fight over a comb.

It is hilarious, agreed. They are advocating a tool specifically designed to kill people with and saying that society will somehow be a safer place if you have more of them.

Straw-man argument is straw-man.    :yawn:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on August 06, 2017, 01:33:50 PM
How is your bald spot? :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 06, 2017, 06:07:30 AM
It's gone really quiet from the gun lobby over the last month.  Has something happened?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: 'andersom' on November 06, 2017, 09:19:01 AM
It's a matter of priorities. :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 06, 2017, 12:09:46 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: 'andersom' on November 06, 2017, 12:35:02 PM
Lately I only sigh.

I guess it's brave that you still can get outraged now and then.
Pc outraged or anti pc outraged?

What is pc outraged nowadays?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 06, 2017, 12:36:44 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 06, 2017, 12:38:15 PM
I'm not sure how it makes a difference?

They are still fucking psychotic fucks regardless. Admittedly, though it is pretty unusual to see somebody go postal like this who is a human being gone fucked up instead of some filthy pig-shagging allah nigger jihadi twunt.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: 'andersom' on November 06, 2017, 12:54:38 PM
Time to read the news better, Lestat.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 06, 2017, 01:35:14 PM
The incident that Cho guy caused is not news, and hasn't been for some time. its just pretty unusual to see a human gone bad doing this kind of thing, rather than a dune coon.


Although if I remember rightly, wasn't there some talk about cho being on the spectrum? I can't help but find it alarming just how many such psyvhotics do get 'autism' thrown at them like it were some sort of poisoned dart, and serving only to make the ignorant turn hostile towards us as a subpecies. Making us out to be a race of monsters and panicking NTs
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 06, 2017, 04:00:02 PM
How is your bald spot? :zoinks:

How is yours?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 06, 2017, 04:56:09 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.
The majority of US mass shooters are white if just assuming is any help.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 06, 2017, 06:54:44 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.
The majority of US mass shooters are white if just assuming is any help.
The stats are interesting. It may be the only crime ever noticed which the demographics are very reflective of the population percentages, while not exactly but still very close. It's an equal opportunity sort of thing.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 06, 2017, 08:47:51 PM
How is your bald spot? :zoinks:

How is yours?

Mine's a little itchy.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 06, 2017, 08:56:08 PM
Where is your bald spot?  :orly:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 06, 2017, 08:57:03 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 06, 2017, 08:58:51 PM
Where is your bald spot?  :orly:

You have to agree to scratch it first.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 06, 2017, 09:24:39 PM
When's the last time you took a bath?  :hide:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 06, 2017, 09:26:18 PM
When's the last time you took a bath?  :hide:

I can only attest I'm well groomed in the places I can reach.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 06, 2017, 10:04:58 PM
All right. All right. *offers to scratch gopher*
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: 'andersom' on November 07, 2017, 02:15:06 AM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:
Read it as a combination of sarcasm, and cynical criticism.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 07, 2017, 03:04:09 AM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:

Thank you for noticing Mr Gopher.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 07, 2017, 03:47:27 AM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:

Sometimes he is thoroughly ridiculous.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 07, 2017, 06:20:52 AM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:

Sometimes he is thoroughly ridiculous.
He just doesn't say enough so it leaves too much room for misinterpretation. It would be interesting to know what it means. Not sure if it's a comment on US news or news where he is. It's been considered bad form for some years in the US for journalists to note race in the news, except for some crime alerts where the suspect is still at large and even then if it's not a helpful description then there's no point in say it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: renaeden on November 07, 2017, 07:21:27 AM
Saw a comment on Facebook about people sending "thoughts and prayers" kind of ironic considering the victims were in a church.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 07, 2017, 12:18:24 PM
I wish they'd publish the colour of the mass murderers with the first news report.  It's difficult to know whether or not to be outraged without it.

:LMAO:

WOW!! This is in no way, shape or form, absolutely racist!!!  :rofl:

Sometimes he says sarcastic stuff, so I took it as sarcasm. I got more confused trying to tell if it was just posting at the wind, or actually a response to anything anyone said.  :dunno:

Sometimes he is thoroughly ridiculous.

Exactly. Poe's Law applies to people like 4 ace deal.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on November 07, 2017, 02:03:14 PM
How is your bald spot? :zoinks:

How is yours?

Mine is growing nicely, BTW.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on November 07, 2017, 02:17:39 PM

Another USA shooting btw, criminal used legally purchased weaponry.

Little church in small town central Texas. Interestingly, a local not involved standerby gave chase and engaged the criminal.

Unfortunately, had local government agencies which check these things known about his violent history during his military service, as a felon, he would not have been able to purchase any kind of firearm legally, and yet he had four "legal"  firearms.
The facts of his "dishonorable discharge" from the military are just being released.

Kind of a break down in the database, I think. The only way that laws work is that if EVERYONE follows them, including the military revealing the troubles of their own to the general public!!!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 07, 2017, 08:09:34 PM
The only way that laws work is that if EVERYONE follows them, including the military revealing the troubles of their own to the general public!!!

Yeah seriously. It makes sense for military justice to be applied in a war zone, but not over somebody abusing their family in home territory, no matter what kind of a PR nightmare somebody's fearing.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 09, 2017, 04:18:24 AM
This sort of thing doesn't happen in the UK or Australia since we passed laws to control Mental Health issues.  Mental Health issues are only an American thing.  Especially the assault style Mental Health issues with large magazines.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 09, 2017, 08:44:44 AM
Because the NHS is so effective, fair and timely at dealing with any issues that come up, yes?  :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 09, 2017, 10:43:54 AM
Because the NHS is so effective, fair and timely at dealing with any issues that come up, yes?  :P


Yes.  It is.  It's only bad in the land of Republicans, who are being paid large amounts of money by large medical insurance companies to continue to lie to you. 

I get sick.  I get fixed for free.  A few years back I suffered a brain aneurysm.  I was treated in the best Neurosurgery unit in the country as an emergency then two weeks in hospital.  Since then I've had 20 or so MRI scans.  All free at point of treatment.

Sitting back and thinking that you're better off without the NHS just makes people want to laugh at you. #

Any more Breitbart facts you want to run by us?  Feel free.  We don;t get angry at you.  We just laugh at what you believe to be true.  It's funnier than anything on TV tonight.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 09, 2017, 10:53:38 AM
Just to knock another Republican lie into the blue yonder....

If you don't want to use the NHS you don't have to. You can also have private health insurance just like in the US.  Except it's better cover and a fraction of the price.  Or you can even go private without insurance and just pay for your treatment just like in the US, except everything is much much cheaper.

But mostly we go NHS because it's free.

You do sometimes have to wait for non-emergency treatment, but let's face it, it's not going to bankrupt you.

UK bankruptcies a year due to medical bills?  Zero.
US bankruptcies a year due to medical bills?  Over 600,000 I believe.

Compare things like infant mortality rates and other health indicators.  The NHS pulls it's weight.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 09, 2017, 10:54:34 AM
But I digress.

But thank you for veering away from the thread topic just to get an insult in about someones country.  Do you usually feel this insecure?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 09, 2017, 06:23:14 PM
I blame my insecurities on closed circuit video surveillance.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 09, 2017, 10:29:33 PM
Yes.  It is.  It's only bad in the land of Republicans, who are being paid large amounts of money by large medical insurance companies to continue to lie to you. 

Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA and don't have a stake in defending their system. So whatever political position you're projecting onto me, quit it. My comment was meant in commiseration with people having trouble with the system, not to prove a point.

#2, what I'm going by is what Walkie has told me about how bad things are, she's been in the thick of dealing with them for years now.

I have brief experience with them myself from working in the UK for six months. Months-long delays seem to be the norm, similar to Canada or possibly worse. But you can't argue with the cost. Also when I did get in to see a GP, they just looked up my symptoms in a big book of diagnoses to figure out what medications to prescribe. A trained chimp could have done that, or I could have done it myself with Dr. Google, if I had the authority to prescribe myself stuff.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 10, 2017, 05:57:25 AM
Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA

It doesn't matter. He's right. Insulting someone else's country is clearly a sign of insecurity. :hahaha:  I admire FourAceDeal being so secure he doesn't need to do that. :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 10, 2017, 06:21:57 AM
Yes.  It is.  It's only bad in the land of Republicans, who are being paid large amounts of money by large medical insurance companies to continue to lie to you. 

Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA and don't have a stake in defending their system. So whatever political position you're projecting onto me, quit it. My comment was meant in commiseration with people having trouble with the system, not to prove a point.

#2, what I'm going by is what Walkie has told me about how bad things are, she's been in the thick of dealing with them for years now.

I have brief experience with them myself from working in the UK for six months. Months-long delays seem to be the norm, similar to Canada or possibly worse. But you can't argue with the cost. Also when I did get in to see a GP, they just looked up my symptoms in a big book of diagnoses to figure out what medications to prescribe. A trained chimp could have done that, or I could have done it myself with Dr. Google, if I had the authority to prescribe myself stuff.
Gotta back Pyraxis up here. Not in in the mood to go into the issues that I and my family have had with the NHS over a period of years and years and years.  Besides,   I thought everybody knew that the NHS is very much struggling to cope by now?  Heck, even  Tory politicians know that.

Besides which, the NHS is not free. It's  paid for by our  National Insurance contibutions and taxes, isn't it?  It's pretty damned scandalous, IMO,   that so many people, who are paying already for their "free NHS treartment" under our tax system, have to take out private medical insurance on top of that, to be sure of getting necessary treatment (that does not include me, mind, because I can't afford medical; insurance, and have too many pre-existing conditions anyway to, qualify for any kind of useful cover . What's more, my generation were brought up to think of people who buy private medical treatment as selfish "queue jumpers" . So, probably most of missed that boat, on principle)

I'm glad that somebody had a good experience of the NHS, but please don't project that onto everybody else. Other people do have very good reasons for complaining. And to dismiss their experience amnd POV just because you're comparatively lucky is...well... smug and offensive, seems to me.

I've often been told by American's that their system actually works better than ours does, in many ways, e3ven for the poor.  Yep, I was surptised, and more than a little sceptical about that.  But it seems to be down to charities stepping in to fill the void in State care. Here, we don't have those charities. We still expect the State to provide, even when it doesn't.  I dunno. But I've heard this said rather too many times, by too many intelligent people to lightly dismiss it



Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 10, 2017, 06:27:29 AM
Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA

It doesn't matter. He's right. Insulting someone else's country is clearly a sign of insecurity. :hahaha:  I admire FourAceDeal being so secure he doesn't need to do that. :zoinks:
Hehe.

Ohhhhhhh! The gopher is back!   :party:

Wb, furry one !
:hug:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 10, 2017, 04:22:24 PM
Another shooting in the US? I'm shocked, I tell you.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 10, 2017, 04:46:21 PM
Another shooting in the US? I'm shocked, I tell you.

Don't worry if you missed that one. Another will be along shortly.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 10, 2017, 05:22:12 PM
Another shooting in the US? I'm shocked, I tell you.
Welcome back.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 10, 2017, 05:57:28 PM

Ohhhhhhh! The gopher is back!   :party:

Wb, furry one !
:hug:

Thank you.   :green:  I'm still trying to figure out why I smell like frog.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 10, 2017, 06:33:07 PM
Yes.  It is.  It's only bad in the land of Republicans, who are being paid large amounts of money by large medical insurance companies to continue to lie to you. 

Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA and don't have a stake in defending their system. So whatever political position you're projecting onto me, quit it. My comment was meant in commiseration with people having trouble with the system, not to prove a point.

#2, what I'm going by is what Walkie has told me about how bad things are, she's been in the thick of dealing with them for years now.

I have brief experience with them myself from working in the UK for six months. Months-long delays seem to be the norm, similar to Canada or possibly worse. But you can't argue with the cost. Also when I did get in to see a GP, they just looked up my symptoms in a big book of diagnoses to figure out what medications to prescribe. A trained chimp could have done that, or I could have done it myself with Dr. Google, if I had the authority to prescribe myself stuff.

He has nothing to counter this and made a lot of baseless assumptions. He has an ideology and all narratives that flow from this are righteous. Could not imagine being like that.

Generally speaking the more ideological a position the less intellectual the position. Or from a different perspective, the more ideological a person the more ignorant, soapbox preaching, virtue signalling, and ridiculous they are.

I think this was a really great reply though.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2017, 02:25:58 AM
Another shooting in the US? I'm shocked, I tell you.
Welcome back.

Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 11, 2017, 02:26:30 AM
Another shooting in the US? I'm shocked, I tell you.

Don't worry if you missed that one. Another will be along shortly.

I hear prayers help.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 11, 2017, 10:33:39 AM
Yes.  It is.  It's only bad in the land of Republicans, who are being paid large amounts of money by large medical insurance companies to continue to lie to you. 

Okay, #1 I'm not in the USA and don't have a stake in defending their system. So whatever political position you're projecting onto me, quit it. My comment was meant in commiseration with people having trouble with the system, not to prove a point.

#2, what I'm going by is what Walkie has told me about how bad things are, she's been in the thick of dealing with them for years now.

I have brief experience with them myself from working in the UK for six months. Months-long delays seem to be the norm, similar to Canada or possibly worse. But you can't argue with the cost. Also when I did get in to see a GP, they just looked up my symptoms in a big book of diagnoses to figure out what medications to prescribe. A trained chimp could have done that, or I could have done it myself with Dr. Google, if I had the authority to prescribe myself stuff.
Gotta back Pyraxis up here. Not in in the mood to go into the issues that I and my family have had with the NHS over a period of years and years and years.  Besides,   I thought everybody knew that the NHS is very much struggling to cope by now?  Heck, even  Tory politicians know that.

Besides which, the NHS is not free. It's  paid for by our  National Insurance contibutions and taxes, isn't it?  It's pretty damned scandalous, IMO,   that so many people, who are paying already for their "free NHS treartment" under our tax system, have to take out private medical insurance on top of that, to be sure of getting necessary treatment (that does not include me, mind, because I can't afford medical; insurance, and have too many pre-existing conditions anyway to, qualify for any kind of useful cover . What's more, my generation were brought up to think of people who buy private medical treatment as selfish "queue jumpers" . So, probably most of missed that boat, on principle)

I'm glad that somebody had a good experience of the NHS, but please don't project that onto everybody else. Other people do have very good reasons for complaining. And to dismiss their experience amnd POV just because you're comparatively lucky is...well... smug and offensive, seems to me.

I've often been told by American's that their system actually works better than ours does, in many ways, e3ven for the poor.  Yep, I was surptised, and more than a little sceptical about that.  But it seems to be down to charities stepping in to fill the void in State care. Here, we don't have those charities. We still expect the State to provide, even when it doesn't.  I dunno. But I've heard this said rather too many times, by too many intelligent people to lightly dismiss it

So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 11, 2017, 12:13:38 PM
So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 11, 2017, 12:35:35 PM
So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack!  :LOL:

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply  8)

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 11, 2017, 07:37:19 PM
Thank you.   :green:  I'm still trying to figure out why I smell like frog.  :zoinks:


#itsoktobegreen
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 11, 2017, 08:31:48 PM
Quote
A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.9c3e87fe9f3c

There is a lot more hard data available if you want to research the cost of healthcare in the US relative to the outcomes achieved.

Or you could just continue to rely on propaganda and anecdotal evidence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 12, 2017, 05:36:28 AM
So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack!  :LOL:

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply  8)

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 12, 2017, 07:36:20 AM
So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack!  :LOL:

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply  8)

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

Progressive ideologues are pointless creatures.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 12, 2017, 08:41:28 AM
I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.
The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 12, 2017, 11:33:07 AM
I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.
The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.

And it costs more than twice per person in the US for healthcare than the UK and yet its still behind the UK (and nearly every other advanced economy) in every measurable metric I can find (for example US infant mortality is 50% higher than UK). 

When you have a system that is built for profit then great parts of the finance go towards profit and not healthcare. 
Shareholders, advertising and the upkeep of a commercial arm at every level of operation.  If you're selling soap powder or mass produced hamburgers then it's the business model of choice for the biggest return on investment in dollar terms.  But if you want to heal the sick then capitalism is not the best starting point.

Check out the statistics available from the UN and the WHO.  They're eye opening.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 12, 2017, 12:33:14 PM
So the million dollar question.  Would you rather have no NHS and have to rely on either private insurance or charities?
How is that a million dollar question? I would be like asking someone with government healthcare in the US if they would rather not have it at all, or asking someone on welfare if they would rather not have it at all. It implies people who utilize the system don't have a right to complain about it.

Stop tempting me to plus you, Jack!  :LOL:

But, hey ! thanks!  Now I don't have to bother with attempting to frame a reply  8)

Of course it was a stupid question. It will always be a stupid question.  Not having a free healthcare system is a no brainer to anyone who has a free healthcare system.

That's the point.

I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.

An argument against what? Against the NHS? I surely wouldn't argue against the NHS,  just complain that it's broken . It worked pretty damned well for a while... until the Pharmaceutical Industry  managed to  drain  far too much of it's  too much of it's budget into their pockets ,  the Govt started privatising it, piece by piece, etc.   I know that your "mental Health "  comment was a joke , but in actual , sad, fact,  that was the first dept to seriously suffer, and still the most underfunded of the lot :( .

Why the heck are we discussing the NHS in this thread anyways?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 12, 2017, 01:41:40 PM
I'm trying to find someone who has an argument against it that's based on anything other than GOP innuendo.
The US has national healthcare for the poor, elderly, disabled, and military, which covers about 40% of the population. Prefer to see changes addressing specific problem areas, such as the affordable care act which helps to bridge the gap between those who qualify for government coverage and those who can afford insurance. Personally would never support a fully nationalized system in the US, unless it meant the complete elimination of the health insurance industry, and honestly don't see health insurance ever going away. Insurance defeats a nationalized system, and insurance combined with nationalized care appears to create a class system within the medical establishment with hospitals and medical practices who don't accept medicade, medicare, or even Obamacare insurance companies. Though the bottom line is, I don't believe the government can handle it; I don't believe they would do a good job. I believe the government should first focus to do a better job to manage their responsibilities to the people who do need them. The private sector in the US does a better job than the government at everything, and see no problem with the private sector having the responsibility to take care of itself as much as it can.

And it costs more than twice per person in the US for healthcare than the UK and yet its still behind the UK (and nearly every other advanced economy) in every measurable metric I can find (for example US infant mortality is 50% higher than UK). 

When you have a system that is built for profit then great parts of the finance go towards profit and not healthcare. 
Shareholders, advertising and the upkeep of a commercial arm at every level of operation.  If you're selling soap powder or mass produced hamburgers then it's the business model of choice for the biggest return on investment in dollar terms.  But if you want to heal the sick then capitalism is not the best starting point.

Check out the statistics available from the UN and the WHO.  They're eye opening.
Don't now about other people, but my insurance is expensive; it's also heavily used which equals a fair amount of additional out of pocket. Have looked into it before, and it appears my cost are very similar to the amount my income would be taxed for health tax in the UK. That doesn't mean the actual healthcare isn't more expensive; it just means my insurance company pays the medical establishment more than the UK government would pay, and as an individual I can't see the difference. One reason cost of healthcare is so high in the US, is because people who have coverage, either public or private, are charged more to make up for those who don't. It's still to be seen if the ACA will help to lower the individual cost of care. It makes sense it would. Current legislation restricts the profit margins of insurance companies, and requires 80% of all income to be paid out to health services of clients. That doesn't seem very american, but as you said capitalism shouldn't necessarily be the primary concern of healthcare. Viewed it as a trade off; the government gets to restrict profit of a capitalistic market, and in exchange to that market the government mandates insurance for people who personally chose not to buy it. Though haven't in the past viewed profitability as the real problem with insurance; as said before it's the medical class system it creates. That class system appears to exist in the UK as well because of the option of insurance. However you asked for an argument which isn't based in economics. I gave one, and it's valid.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 12, 2017, 04:16:25 PM
I do not have health insurance. I used public health system.
Therefore, because I live in Australia,  healthcare is free.



....except that I also pay a medicare levy on mt taxation which equate to about 1.5%.

So if there was no Medicare Levy, would it be cheaper each year for me, than 1.5% of my taxable income? Maybe. Maybe not BUT saying there is no cost is silly.

I am also keenly aware that healthcare costs come from somewhere. Whether it is a free but not free system like ours, a user pays system, a tax payer funded cost that results in higher taxes for the tax paying public or a line item in a national deficit kicked doen the road for future generations to inherit and manage.

This moralising and chest thumping over healthcare is weird. None of these methods make the cost disappear. They will get borne by the public somehow
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 12, 2017, 06:33:50 PM
Am I moral chest thumping? :laugh: What works for other countries works for other countries. Think most americans recognize the system here has problems, but insurance works for a lot of people and it makes more sense to focus on fixing things for the people who it doesn't work. Health and mortality are closely tied to income in the US, even though almost a quarter of the population are low income and disabled receiving Medicaid. People with private insurance have better health stats than people who don't, and it makes sense that would send a message to those who can afford to stay out of the public healthcare system.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 12, 2017, 06:41:38 PM
Am I moral chest thumping? :laugh: What works for other countries works for other countries. Think most americans recognize the system here has problems, but insurance works for a lot of people and it makes more sense to focus on fixing things for the people who it doesn't work. Health and mortality are closely tied to income in the US, even though almost a quarter of the population are low income and disabled receiving Medicaid. People with private insurance have better health stats than people who don't, and it makes sense that would send a message to those who can afford to stay out of the public healthcare system.

I wouldn't have thought so
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 12, 2017, 09:12:53 PM
I wouldn't have thought so
Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 13, 2017, 01:53:57 AM
An argument against what? Against the NHS? I surely wouldn't argue against the NHS,  just complain that it's broken . It worked pretty damned well for a while... until the Pharmaceutical Industry  managed to  drain  far too much of it's  too much of it's budget into their pockets ,  the Govt started privatising it, piece by piece, etc.   I know that your "mental Health "  comment was a joke , but in actual , sad, fact,  that was the first dept to seriously suffer, and still the most underfunded of the lot :( .

Why the heck are we discussing the NHS in this thread anyways?

I substituted the words "Mental health" for the word "gun" in a post.  I was taking the implicit value system of the opposing argument and turning it back round to parody that very same belief system.  But Pyraxis kind of zoomed in on the term "mental health" and went off on a giant tangent.

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 13, 2017, 03:24:18 AM
I wouldn't have thought so
Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.

I would like to think that we all have at least a rudimentary understanding of other countries, people and culture.  :)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 13, 2017, 04:12:19 AM
Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.

Do you think that works both ways?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 13, 2017, 04:29:58 AM
Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.

Do you think that works both ways?

Do you think?  :P
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 13, 2017, 05:09:51 PM

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

You could tag it with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]  :orly: But yeah, sarcasm often has a tone of voice and that doesn't come through over the internet, so it probably causes confusion with the normals too and even more likely someplace like this, so it's probably likely at least one person will misunderstand. I recognize your sarcasm but you're sarcastic often enough that if I'm really not sure then I'll just assume you're being sarcastic, and that could cause misunderstandings too. Or you could just take it all for what it is. Either way you'll probably still have to explain yourself occasionally around here.  :dunno:

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 13, 2017, 05:46:14 PM
Have to wonder how it comes across sometimes though, discussing American things with people from other countries.

Do you think that works both ways?

Not sure; can't really speak for you. Didn't understand your getting upset at Pyraxis. You both came across as snarky, for the mere sake of snark. My writing style can be forceful, so that creates a potential for my opinion to be presentedd in the form of fact. It also creates the potential to send an underlying message of, you're wrong, you're bad, you're stupid, when it's not intended. It's important for my presentation to be forceful, but also important to not be offensive. Discussing American society with people from other countries sometimes feels like discussing the bible, because I wonder if people are assuming things I'm not really saying. If they are assuming, then hopefully it's not too offensive. :laugh:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 14, 2017, 03:14:07 AM

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

You could tag it with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]  :orly: But yeah, sarcasm often has a tone of voice and that doesn't come through over the internet, so it probably causes confusion with the normals too and even more likely someplace like this, so it's probably likely at least one person will misunderstand. I recognize your sarcasm but you're sarcastic often enough that if I'm really not sure then I'll just assume you're being sarcastic, and that could cause misunderstandings too. Or you could just take it all for what it is. Either way you'll probably still have to explain yourself occasionally around here.  :dunno:

Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but sometimes I aim a little higher.  And sometimes lower.   But mostly I'm making fun of the entire human race.  They're a bunch of petty, silly bastards and deserve to be laughed at.  Haven't you met the humans? 
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 14, 2017, 03:16:45 AM
Not sure; can't really speak for you. Didn't understand your getting upset at Pyraxis. You both came across as snarky, for the mere sake of snark. My writing style can be forceful, so that creates a potential for my opinion to be presentedd in the form of fact. It also creates the potential to send an underlying message of, you're wrong, you're bad, you're stupid, when it's not intended. It's important for my presentation to be forceful, but also important to not be offensive. Discussing American society with people from other countries sometimes feels like discussing the bible, because I wonder if people are assuming things I'm not really saying. If they are assuming, then hopefully it's not too offensive. :laugh:

I did get snarky.  The toxic atmosphere on this board got to me.  I owe pyraxis an apology I guess.  I have changed the situation by no longer reading posts by certain people.  It's not like I'm losing anything intellectual from my life, and my mood is better now.  What this board needs is a block list feature.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 14, 2017, 05:37:31 AM
An argument against what? Against the NHS? I surely wouldn't argue against the NHS,  just complain that it's broken . It worked pretty damned well for a while... until the Pharmaceutical Industry  managed to  drain  far too much of it's  too much of it's budget into their pockets ,  the Govt started privatising it, piece by piece, etc.   I know that your "mental Health "  comment was a joke , but in actual , sad, fact,  that was the first dept to seriously suffer, and still the most underfunded of the lot :( .

Why the heck are we discussing the NHS in this thread anyways?

I substituted the words "Mental health" for the word "gun" in a post.  I was taking the implicit value system of the opposing argument and turning it back round to parody that very same belief system.  But Pyraxis kind of zoomed in on the term "mental health" and went off on a giant tangent.

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

 a big :plus: for this and subsequent posts.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 14, 2017, 05:41:54 AM
Not sure; can't really speak for you. Didn't understand your getting upset at Pyraxis. You both came across as snarky, for the mere sake of snark. My writing style can be forceful, so that creates a potential for my opinion to be presentedd in the form of fact. It also creates the potential to send an underlying message of, you're wrong, you're bad, you're stupid, when it's not intended. It's important for my presentation to be forceful, but also important to not be offensive. Discussing American society with people from other countries sometimes feels like discussing the bible, because I wonder if people are assuming things I'm not really saying. If they are assuming, then hopefully it's not too offensive. :laugh:

I did get snarky.  The toxic atmosphere on this board got to me.  I owe pyraxis an apology I guess.  I have changed the situation by no longer reading posts by certain people.  It's not like I'm losing anything intellectual from my life, and my mood is better now.  What this board needs is a block list feature.

Or, you know, be an adult and decide what and who you are going to read. Either or I suppose. Self-control may be the better option.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 14, 2017, 05:43:18 AM

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

You could tag it with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]  :orly: But yeah, sarcasm often has a tone of voice and that doesn't come through over the internet, so it probably causes confusion with the normals too and even more likely someplace like this, so it's probably likely at least one person will misunderstand. I recognize your sarcasm but you're sarcastic often enough that if I'm really not sure then I'll just assume you're being sarcastic, and that could cause misunderstandings too. Or you could just take it all for what it is. Either way you'll probably still have to explain yourself occasionally around here.  :dunno:

Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but sometimes I aim a little higher.  And sometimes lower.   But mostly I'm making fun of the entire human race.  They're a bunch of petty, silly bastards and deserve to be laughed at.  Haven't you met the humans?

Sure have. I laughed at you the other day.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 14, 2017, 06:06:29 AM

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

You could tag it with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]  :orly: But yeah, sarcasm often has a tone of voice and that doesn't come through over the internet, so it probably causes confusion with the normals too and even more likely someplace like this, so it's probably likely at least one person will misunderstand. I recognize your sarcasm but you're sarcastic often enough that if I'm really not sure then I'll just assume you're being sarcastic, and that could cause misunderstandings too. Or you could just take it all for what it is. Either way you'll probably still have to explain yourself occasionally around here.  :dunno:

Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but sometimes I aim a little higher.  And sometimes lower.   But mostly I'm making fun of the entire human race.  They're a bunch of petty, silly bastards and deserve to be laughed at.  Haven't you met the humans?

All my bitches are wild animals.  :zoinks: Seriously though, you should put that in your signature or something. All this time I thought you only cared about making fun of Americans.  :lol1:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 14, 2017, 08:10:39 AM

It was my mistake I guess.  I should have stopped at that point and explained the post so it wouldn't cause confusion.

Personally I thought it was clear what I was doing but in future I'll post some sort of subscript so we can avoid this situation.

You could tag it with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm]  :orly: But yeah, sarcasm often has a tone of voice and that doesn't come through over the internet, so it probably causes confusion with the normals too and even more likely someplace like this, so it's probably likely at least one person will misunderstand. I recognize your sarcasm but you're sarcastic often enough that if I'm really not sure then I'll just assume you're being sarcastic, and that could cause misunderstandings too. Or you could just take it all for what it is. Either way you'll probably still have to explain yourself occasionally around here.  :dunno:

Sometimes I'm sarcastic, but sometimes I aim a little higher.  And sometimes lower.   But mostly I'm making fun of the entire human race.  They're a bunch of petty, silly bastards and deserve to be laughed at.  Haven't you met the humans?

All my bitches are wild animals.  :zoinks: Seriously though, you should put that in your signature or something. All this time I thought you only cared about making fun of Americans.  :lol1:

Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile?  Doesn't sound right, that word.  Is there really no word in English for someone who likes Americans??  Go figure.... 

I actually get on with Americans.  I am the only British member of a twelve person team at work.  The other 11 people are Americans.  My job is based out of Pittsburgh.  I was there last in the run up to the election in 2016.  One of my favourite places is Manhattan.

Singly and in small groups Americans are the greatest people on earth.  It's just that collectively you make some really questionable decisions that not only invite mocking, they deserve mocking. 

And I reserve the right to mock, satirise and just plum laugh at them.

Although.... in this topic I am making fun of the false-logic being used by certain subsections of the US gun debate.  It makes me laugh. And I like to share that.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 14, 2017, 11:09:16 AM
I did get snarky.  The toxic atmosphere on this board got to me.  I owe pyraxis an apology I guess.  I have changed the situation by no longer reading posts by certain people.  It's not like I'm losing anything intellectual from my life, and my mood is better now.  What this board needs is a block list feature.

Nah, you're cool. I didn't take it too seriously and it's fun to let things rip on on occasion.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 14, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
I did get snarky.  The toxic atmosphere on this board got to me.  I owe pyraxis an apology I guess.  I have changed the situation by no longer reading posts by certain people.  It's not like I'm losing anything intellectual from my life, and my mood is better now.  What this board needs is a block list feature.

Nah, you're cool. I didn't take it too seriously and it's fun to let things rip on on occasion.

He is cool. When I think of cool, I think of Four Ace and Fonzy, or something
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 14, 2017, 06:48:17 PM
Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile?

If you had been a member of this forum longer, you'd probably know I would have bet money on that.  :lol1:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 14, 2017, 06:59:59 PM
Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile? 

I actually get on with Americans.  I am the only British member of a twelve person team at work.  The other 11 people are Americans.  My job is based out of Pittsburgh.  I was there last in the run up to the election in 2016.  One of my favourite places is Manhattan.

Uum yeah, from the sounds of it, you only like Leftist Americans from big cities on the coasts (or accessible from them).

Then there's the rest of America, who doesn't buy into the PC propaganda.

You know, those people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but voted for Trump in 2016 because they finally realized that the Democrats fucked them over? That's the backbone of America.

I'm guessing you think those Americans are just a bunch of redneck hicks. AmIrite??
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 15, 2017, 01:37:54 AM
4 dead and 10 injured by an assault rifle rampage in California.

Stop worrying everyone, Mike Pence has prayed for you so everything is sorted out.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 15, 2017, 01:41:13 AM
4 dead and 10 injured by an assault rifle rampage in California.

Stop worrying everyone, Mike Pence has prayed for you so everything is sorted out.

Christian people should not pray.

I learn so much from Four Ace
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 15, 2017, 03:36:35 AM
4 dead and 10 injured by an assault rifle rampage in California.

Stop worrying everyone, Mike Pence has prayed for you so everything is sorted out.

Assault rifles are capable of full auto fire and are regulated by the firearms control act of 1934...
























... fucking dumbass.  :hahaha:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 15, 2017, 06:28:21 AM

Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile? 
Isn't that somebody who finds espresso too strong for their tastes?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 15, 2017, 07:36:21 AM

Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile? 
Isn't that somebody who finds espresso too strong for their tastes?

You know when you want a coffee?  Just a coffee?  No messing about.  Just white coffee in a cup and you want it now?  Well I went into a chain coffee place (for the first time in years as I don't do chains) and they had "Flat White" on the menu.  So stupid me thought that a flat white was just a white coffee and being in a hurry I ordered one. 

I then had to wait for 5 frickin' minutes while some idiot with a man bun on his head drew a perfect fern leaf on the top of it.

As soon as he put it down I grabbed a spoon and - while staring him straight in the eyes - I stirred the cup up and ruined all his hard work.

I said thanks and while I was walking off I distinctly heard him utter the "C" word under his breath.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Pyraxis on November 15, 2017, 09:17:41 AM
 :lol1:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 15, 2017, 10:31:19 AM
What a tosspot he was. If there is any karma in the world he'll have gotten home and found his newborn baby being eaten by starving raccoons. Who'd chitter, stick up one digit on those curiously hand-like paws and mutter 'c**t' through a mouth full of romper suit.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 15, 2017, 12:00:16 PM

Truth be told I'm an... Americanophile? 
Isn't that somebody who finds espresso too strong for their tastes?

You know when you want a coffee?  Just a coffee?  No messing about.  Just white coffee in a cup and you want it now?  Well I went into a chain coffee place (for the first time in years as I don't do chains) and they had "Flat White" on the menu.  So stupid me thought that a flat white was just a white coffee and being in a hurry I ordered one. 

I then had to wait for 5 frickin' minutes while some idiot with a man bun on his head drew a perfect fern leaf on the top of it.

As soon as he put it down I grabbed a spoon and - while staring him straight in the eyes - I stirred the cup up and ruined all his hard work.

I said thanks and while I was walking off I distinctly heard him utter the "C" word under his breath.

 :lol1:

I always have a soya milk latte, these days, with loads of sugar stirred in. Makes up for finding nothing I can eat, in those places (too many food sensitivities) .  I'd rather not do chains, but then, Starbucks offer a free latte when you present an empty promotional  pack of their ground coffee, and I cannot resist a bargain.  So that swings it.  The coffee if ridiculously cheap if you take account of the free latte, and not at all bad.

Which chain does the silly fern leaves? Heck, you probably have to pay an extra £1 or two per cup for the artistry.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 15, 2017, 12:34:52 PM
What a tosspot he was. If there is any karma in the world he'll have gotten home and found his newborn baby being eaten by starving raccoons. Who'd chitter, stick up one digit on those curiously hand-like paws and mutter 'c**t' through a mouth full of romper suit.

That's a little extreme for me.  My favoured method of revenge is to induce mild irritation.  And besides, I admire a well placed expletive.  Swearing should be an art.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 15, 2017, 02:48:14 PM
Indeed. I did mean to add something about the racoons drawing fern leaves on their meal. Been having a lot of connection issues and keep having to work on posts intermittently, Network cable has been causing problems.

I'd have been pretty hacked off if I was in a real hurry though, only for some bumptious little tit to ponce around drawing fern leaves in my coffee when what I wanted was something hot, poured in a cup, and a lid put on top maybe.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 15, 2017, 04:15:49 PM
I substituted the words "Mental health" for the word "gun" in a post.  I was taking the implicit value system of the opposing argument and turning it back round to parody that very same belief system.

Yes, but in the case of the last 2 shootings, mental health was the core issue.

The Texas shooter shouldn't've had guns in the first place because he was legally barred from buying them, the law simply wasn't followed.

The California shooter should've been barred from owning guns, he had a history of violence and mental health issues.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 15, 2017, 04:40:59 PM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 16, 2017, 03:16:13 AM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 16, 2017, 03:29:10 AM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 16, 2017, 03:35:15 AM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

No gun control action will solve it either.

God you're fucking dense.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 16, 2017, 01:00:02 PM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 16, 2017, 02:20:35 PM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 16, 2017, 06:29:59 PM
Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.
What exactly do you expect? Have already made the point, gun control is high on the list of expectations when electing democrats, but eight years of the Obama administration produced nothing. Not only no new legislation, but also not a single effort to enforce the existing legislation. The Brady Act has been in effect for 24 years and there are still states which are absurdly non-compliant, while the federal government does nothing in terms of enforcement. In addition to state government compliance issues, then federal government fails in their own responsibilities to register felony convictions and dishonorable discharges. No one reads about failure to perform background checks, because the general public are the only ones adhering to the laws, while the leadership who impose those laws make that compliance moot. The majority of americans support more strict gun control, but personally would like to see the current laws enforced. There's only so much the average person can do, so continuously sniping about American guns in general either implies a lack of understanding of the situation, or a simple need to snipe, because America.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2017, 12:58:50 AM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

You're not making much sense. It seems to me that you're trying to compare the IRA-related terrorism of the past (yes, really; do read up) with the US's gun-related violence. Seriously?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 17, 2017, 01:55:36 AM
The big problem with gun laws is twofold IMO:

1-it prevents the law abiding people, who might otherwise have no defense against an attacker from not being slaughtered by those determined to do so.

And 2-hardcore scumbags, terrorist jihadis, career criminals? gun regulations aren't going to make a difference, because those hellbent on violence of that nature, school shooters etc. they don't give a fuck about a few regulations, when they want the guns for purposes of indiscriminate slaughter. Thus such regulations actively serve to enrich the proportion of armed criminal thuggish elements to those who are law abiding, nonviolent and forced to remain unarmed but for what they have the means to arm themselves with (E.g things like coilguns, ECT cannons, railguns, nasty little contraptions built from microwave emitters and waveguides and pulsed power sources etc.)

So the law abiding who want weapons to defend themselves find themselves restricted, whilst the thugs and the terrorists aren't taking the least bit of notice in the first place.

Tell you what... how about another 30 years of inaction?  That'll solve it.

How are you guys solving the bombing problem you guys have historically had? I reckon making bombs illegal should help.

They did solve it.

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

You're not making much sense. It seems to me that you're trying to compare the IRA-related terrorism of the past (yes, really; do read up) with the US's gun-related violence. Seriously?

Thanks for the suggestion.

No I was rather making the point that bad people (and mentally ill people) do bad things. Whether making illegal bombs or illegslly using firearms, bad people will continue to do bad things. Good people will not.

People are not allowed to make bombs and kill people, though it happens often enough. People shoyld not misuse firearms but it happens enough.

I think one of the glaring problem with guns in the US is that gun laws are not being enforced. Timee and time again someone makes an ertor or the database had an error or thete was some other reason for the wrong people given access to weapons they were disqualified from purchasing.

So better enforcement of existing US laws, gun education and better mental health would cut doen many of the incidents in the same way the removing public bins and aggressively educating the public to be aware of any unattended bags, made a difference.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2017, 02:31:05 PM
That's a weird argument. I'd say that most people who make (and use) bombs are bad people in that they make them and they deliberately use them to kill. I can't be arsed to look up the numbers but I'm willing to bet that they are significantly fewer than the people who use firearms to kill their fellow human beings in the US. Significantly fewer, as in a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Now, are you saying that if the existing gun laws in the US were followed to the letter, only roughly the same (or comparable in at least some sense of the word) number of people would still be killing others using guns?

That is a novel argument, I'll give you that, but seriously?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 17, 2017, 04:00:21 PM
Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? 

Please never delete those posts.  I'm linking to them from elsewhere as examples of just how dumb a dumb person can be without knowing that they're dumb.

Tell us Al, what gun do you own?  You seem to be such a fan of them.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 17, 2017, 04:32:30 PM
The mind boggles, I know, but the entertainment factor is off the scale.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 17, 2017, 05:48:15 PM
That's a weird argument. I'd say that most people who make (and use) bombs are bad people in that they make them and they deliberately use them to kill. I can't be arsed to look up the numbers but I'm willing to bet that they are significantly fewer than the people who use firearms to kill their fellow human beings in the US. Significantly fewer, as in a factor of hundreds or thousands.

Now, are you saying that if the existing gun laws in the US were followed to the letter, only roughly the same (or comparable in at least some sense of the word) number of people would still be killing others using guns?

That is a novel argument, I'll give you that, but seriously?

One of the problems that Democrats have when confronting these kinds of issues after a tragic incident is that they find that any remedy they offer is met with "Those measures would not have stopped this tragic situation" and they are right.
Chicago is a gun free zone. So there is absolutely no gun violence there....except of course there is.
People are not allowed to purchase and own guns if they have a history of mental health problems and/or a criminal record...except they somehow manage to both purchase and own guns.

THIS is precisely what I mean. Ban guns like Chicago did and what is the effect in Chicago. Honestly, do you think that will work in America and based off what is and continues to happen in Chicago...how? That too is IF you could foment enough support to get around Constitutional rights and such.

So presuming that this is NOT going to work AT ALL, we go to the very next step which is to say "Most people do not step out their door and start firing at everything the moment they leave their house. Who is responsible for the mass shootings and who is responsible for incidental gun violence, What type of people? What makes them different from the majority that do not. How can we prevent these kinds of people from hurting other US citizens?

Criminals and mentally ill are two huge flags. Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

It is a pretty easy logical flow. Unfortunately what I see happen too often is that an incident happens and people get outraged and call for demands that are easily countered as unhelpful as they would not have addressed the problem at hand OR they call for call for Australia style buyback or gun restrictions which goes precisely nowhere because of the Constitution.

I also see that time after time criminals and mentally unfit people get to own or possess guns and often are sold by people who ought to have known better and /or did not check properly OR there has been a database glitch.

Enforce the reasonable and practical laws well and police and audit such places to get better controls, get illicit firearms from the criminal population and it will make the same difference in the same way that removing public rubbish bins in London removed a big inconspicuous hiding place for the IRA when it came to the spate of bombings in London. Practical moves to reduce occurrences.


Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 17, 2017, 06:32:37 PM
Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? 

Please never delete those posts.  I'm linking to them from elsewhere as examples of just how dumb a dumb person can be without knowing that they're dumb.

Tell us Al, what gun do you own?  You seem to be such a fan of them.

You know what would be really stupid? As you are a connoisseur of dumb, I will let you know.

It would be ridiculously stupid to say, imply, infer, suggest that my post was "Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control? " BUT what would be even more stupid would be to actually believe that was what I said or the crux of it after reading my post.

It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

So if you think that suggesting "guns be banned in America" is the answer to even be considered that is even more mind-numbingly stupid than actually believing that "Terrorist bombings used as an excuse against gun control?" what I said or the crux of it after reading my post.

Not only is it ridiculous given the ingrained cultural attachments to guns and its Constitutional rights BUT as mentioned look at Chicago which should be the best example of a city free from gun violence due to the strict gun controls and yet it is in serious gun trouble.

So, if you are indeed a lover of stupid propositions and stupid ideas and love seeing stupid people think stupid things. I have given you plenty to work on. The stupidity of someone called "FourAceDeal". THAT guy is a fucking loon.

Edit: Not that it matters much, but no I don't have a gun but most of my extended family do and so do a few of my daughter's friends and their families. Guns are not that prevalent in Australia though.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 17, 2017, 07:54:28 PM
FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on November 17, 2017, 09:52:00 PM
FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

It seems like I see you here a lot lately. Why don't you post more?  :orly:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2017, 04:56:55 AM
FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

:rofl:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 18, 2017, 05:04:17 AM
It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

It's not what you started out with but sure, let's dismantle this one instead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.30def2356189

Bad people? Toddlers?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 18, 2017, 05:26:52 AM
It is PRECISELY what I was saying and yeah, sure let's follow this argument. Are toddlers bad people?

Now we can discuss this in relevance to this:

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

I highlighted a couple of words.

Now have I said ONLY the mentally ill and criminals are responsible for ALL gun violence? No, I have not. Have I suggested that these measures will stop all gun-related death? No, I have said that the rates would plummet.

Lastly, have I ever inferred toddlers are bad people? Even once? Is this really a point you are arguing or is it something else? It looks like a strawman and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent and misconstrue. Is it?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 18, 2017, 05:18:35 PM
It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

It's not what you started out with but sure, let's dismantle this one instead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.30def2356189

Bad people? Toddlers?

You have clearly missed the point. Background checks and mental health screening for toddlers before letting them  buy guns would prevent most of these shootings.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 18, 2017, 06:33:59 PM
It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

It's not what you started out with but sure, let's dismantle this one instead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.30def2356189

Bad people? Toddlers?

You have clearly missed the point. Background checks and mental health screening for toddlers before letting them  buy guns would prevent most of these shootings.

Most of "which" shootings may I ask?

I mean MOST shootings are NOT committed by toddlers and MOST shootings are by people who are criminal and/or have mental health problems and so MOST shootings would be reduced considerably by taking guns away from(or not allowing them in the hands of)  people with criminal records or mental health problems.

Given this, what have toddlers got to do with ANYTHING?

If you are stuck, I will help you out.

I had mentioned that bad people will do bad things and will seek out doing bad things whether they are legal or not. (This has nothing to do with toddlers or the like).
I then said that bad people will do bad things and good people will do good things (Again this has nothing to do with toddlers)
I then made the proposition that whilst my early points on no new legislation would have prevented specific mass shootings and that gun free zones - if factoring in gun free zones like Chicago as an example - seem to show the gun control outrages are emotionally but of no practical help, I had some practical suggestions if people were actually interested in reducing incidences

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

Again...no mention of toddlers.

What of any of what I actually DID say are you confused about?

Still confused as to how toddlers came into the mix? I will help.
Though I mentioned toddlers not once, Odeon was unsure/strawmanning/confused or something about the role toddlers causing shooting in the US and how that factored in what I said. In short, it did not and as the quote mentions

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

A HUGE proportion of the deaths IS from these two groups. Huge proportion is not ALL deaths. Some of that remainder not included in the huge amount caused by people with mental health issues and or criminals, may be such shootings as accidents (including those by toddlers) and incidences when one is defending themselves or their property lawfully.

If you are making a point about reducing incidences of toddlers getting a hold of guns and causing accidntal shootings, maybe educating ignorant adults about gun safety may be a good idea in reducing it. Maybe you should suggest it. I will support this notion for you

So better enforcement of existing US laws, gun education and better mental health would cut doen many of the incidents

Oh and as a last point, just because Odeon says something it does not mean that you should climb aboard that train or that if he is disagreeing with me, that this makes his position strong. Trying thinking for yourself. It is awesome.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 18, 2017, 09:26:10 PM
That's a lot of words. I'm sure it was interesting.

I was simply referencing the killer toddler issue.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 18, 2017, 09:36:48 PM
That's a lot of words. I'm sure it was interesting.

I was simply referencing the killer toddler issue.

What killer toddler issue?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 18, 2017, 10:50:19 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.a47ec5591f3f

As previously shared by Odeon.

Toddlers with access to guns. Clearly there are some very bad toddlers around.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 18, 2017, 11:06:34 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.a47ec5591f3f

As previously shared by Odeon.

Toddlers with access to guns. Clearly there are some very bad toddlers around.

Toddler do have access with to guns sometimes, why does that make them bad? Shouldn't their parents better monitor them? 
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 19, 2017, 12:14:29 AM
If we take away toddlers' guns then only gangsta toddlers will have guns. Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 01:10:10 AM
If we take away toddlers' guns then only gangsta toddlers will have guns. Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun.

I am not understanding why you believe toddlers are the only people involved in shootings?

In respect to people with criminal records and/or mental health issues

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

This does not say that there may be a small element of shootings involving people that are not mentally ill or criminals (or even toddlers if you like) or that the gun violence would completely disappear - it would simply plummet.

So what IS your point and how does that tie or detract from ANYTHING I said?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2017, 04:21:52 AM
If we take away toddlers' guns then only gangsta toddlers will have guns. Only a good toddler with a gun can stop a bad toddler with a gun.

:rofl:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2017, 04:25:54 AM
Minister of Silly Walks got my point, Al. You didn't.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 04:34:53 AM
Minister of Silly Walks got my point, Al. You didn't.

Perhaps you could explain it given what I HAVE said and not what I have not? (Far as I know I have not said a thing about toddlers being mentally ill or criminals nor making much mention of them at all).
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2017, 04:39:17 AM
Here's a different way of looking at the problem:

Quote from: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Do read the rest of that page.

You might also want to read pages such as this one (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/), on gun use for self-defence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2017, 04:50:56 AM
Minister of Silly Walks got my point, Al. You didn't.

Perhaps you could explain it given what I HAVE said and not what I have not? (Far as I know I have not said a thing about toddlers being mentally ill or criminals nor making much mention of them at all).

It's about your failed attempts at scoping the problem. That bad people and IRA bombings thing that I'm sure felt relevant to you but, well, wasn't.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 04:58:54 AM
Here's a different way of looking at the problem:

Quote from: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Do read the rest of that page.

You might also want to read pages such as this one (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/), on gun use for self-defence.

Read it all and even in this post, the take away is that of all the death by gun in 2010, 660 were accidental shootings of which some may have been ignorant and terminally stupid parents leaving their guns laying around for kids to play with. Presuming that bringing up toddlers was an attempt in some as yet misunderstood way of casting doubt or discrediting my premise that

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

So you would imagine EVEN IF toddlers were the whole sum of ALL 660 accidental shootings, then for any proposition that toddlers were included in this quote above, these numbers would surely need to compete with criminals or the mentally ill in equal numbers or similar to even cast my claim into doubt right? Rationally speaking.

So the total number of deaths from guns in 2010 (of which 660 represented the total amount of people killed in accidental shootings) 31,076. So in which rational way does your narrative about toddlers being part of a 660 number of which 31,076 is the total of deaths by guns, of which a HUGE portion is from criminals and the mentally ill, disclaim or detract or counter

Quote
Proportionally these people make up a HUGE amount of the amount of both mass shootings and incidental gun violence. So stop these people and the effect on gun violence will plummet without the majority of US citizens who are not criminal nor mentally ill.

Doesn't does it?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Minister of Silly Walks got my point, Al. You didn't.

Perhaps you could explain it given what I HAVE said and not what I have not? (Far as I know I have not said a thing about toddlers being mentally ill or criminals nor making much mention of them at all).

It's about your failed attempts at scoping the problem. That bad people and IRA bombings thing that I'm sure felt relevant to you but, well, wasn't.

No, it is rather that I DO get the problem and if YOU say well what about the toddlers that mishandle firearms because of stupid irresponsible adults
Quote
So better enforcement of existing US laws, gun education and better mental health would cut doen many of the incidents
I had covered that some too.

But let's shine that back your way and instead of knocking, PRACTICAL solutions. Now take as read America will not figuratively or literally tear up their constituition AND they are as a people NOT Euro-centric. They are conded to their Constituion and banning guuns and the like will not work AND even where it is applied in some measure like gun free Chicago, it does not work (find stats on that and then look at their gun control laws).

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 19, 2017, 05:47:45 AM
Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 01:01:47 PM
FourAceDeal, the phrase "the gift that keeps on giving" springs to mind.

Jinx!  That is exactly the phrase that sprung to my mind.   It's the logical equivalent of watching youtube videos of people sawing off the tree branch they are sitting on.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 01:10:14 PM

Blah. Blah. Blah.....

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.

I've got a better idea.  Instead of changing the subject, let's talk about the logic bomb you dropped.  I'm still not understanding the thinking behind the connection between a bombing in Britain some time ago and why America should not have tighter gun controls.

Please explain it to me so I can follow you.

How does thins bombing support your point of view?

I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 01:13:55 PM
Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 01:22:42 PM
Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.   The "fact" you are representing is a baseless trope from the NRA.  All the statistics and research opposes what you have said.

You should try getting your facts from places other than Breitbart.

Meanwhile.  Remember that thing you said about a bombing in Britain proving that gun controls wouldn't work in the USA?

Could you run that by me in a bit more detail?  I'm still trying to get my head around it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 19, 2017, 01:24:23 PM
There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said.
Odeon is correct. Your previous post has a quote tagged with his name, but it's your quote not his.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 01:42:14 PM

Blah. Blah. Blah.....

So practical suggestions, what would you do that is NOT relying on Liberal outrage that has not and will not work?

Over to you.

I've got a better idea.  Instead of changing the subject, let's talk about the logic bomb you dropped.  I'm still not understanding the thinking behind the connection between a bombing in Britain some time ago and why America should not have tighter gun controls.

Please explain it to me so I can follow you.

How does thins bombing support your point of view?

I'm all ears.

Some time ago? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/manchester-arena-incident/index.html
I guess it has been 6 months. Hell, why not forget about these kids entirely?

I am not sure you can follow me as I think beyond your snark, you have little in the way of the ability to comprehend. But I will humour you.

Bombings have happened in the past in UK. They will continue to happen. Maybe not all the time but they will happen. They are illegal. They should not happen. No one is allowed to make explosive devices and detonate them, killing people, but this is the world we live in.

The same could be said for using guns to kill people (other than self defence) rather than for protection and hunting and the like. There are always going to be people killing others with guns. There will always be a criminal element or someone who goes off the deep end and starts killing people because they are crazy and accidental shootings. Always going to happen. EVEN IF you made gun ownership illegal in America it is still going to happen. However, we KNOW with certainty that a ban on guns in American will not work. At all. Not worth even pursuing that redundant notion. This is reality.

So given the world is a terrible place and bad things are going to happen regardless and wishing for it to be a nicer place is not constructive and one can only work with what one has to work with, what could actually be bought in place? Now I could virtue signal how terrible UK is in letting its children be blown up but this is virtue signalling. In the same way that some could say "America has to just ban guns to save its citizens" That would equally be virtue signalling.

Preventative measures and working with what you have to work with is better. Vetting of immigrants for possible terrorist links, education of citizens about unattended bags or packages being potentially dangerous, tracking of potential bomb-making parts and ingredients being bought in UK or imported in the UK and removing bins from heavily frequented public spaces are all practical and constructive moves.

Similarly when it comes to guns in US. Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death.

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said.
Odeon is correct. Your previous post has a quote tagged with his name, but it's your quote not his.

Oh I see. I had not realised I had done that. Apologies all around. It was not deliberate. I will amend that.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 19, 2017, 01:47:55 PM
No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.
Thinking that's not what he said. While it's true mental health history isn't an indicator of criminality, mental health does have a noteworthy role in overall gun deaths with two thirds of gun deaths being suicides.


over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 01:58:20 PM
No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.
Thinking that's not what he said. While it's true mental health history isn't an indicator of criminality, mental health does have a noteworthy role in overall gun deaths with two thirds of gun deaths being suicides.


over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

Absolutely.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 02:05:50 PM
Please edit your post so you won't attribute things to me that I did not say.

By "liberal outrage" you mean the practical solutions that actually might work? The common sense that is missing from the gun lobby and the usual republican stupidity? I don't think we have much to discuss.

There is nothing to edit in my post that says anything that you have not said. In fact, if you read closely you will see lots of "If...then" type statements. Why? Because I have been offering constructive solutions to a very real problem given the real resistance to complete gun removal or what would be seen as unConstitituional by many. You in turn have tried to obscure what I have said which is that a HUGE of gun shootings is by people that are mentally ill and people that are criminals and any effective way of reducing the shooting in these two groups will reduce deaths, whilst accepting that they are always going to happen to some extent.

The reasons why this is ought to be obvious is that guns are part of the American culture and part of the Constitution and ANY "solution" that says take them away not only will not work (as we see in places like gun free Chicago) BUT also is against the Constitution. Now the response may be from someone with that all or nothing mindset "Well I am superior morally than the Americans that would oppose this because they are not helping their country" or something similar BUT it amounts to virtue signalling.

So my solution to reduce gun violence had said NOTHING about toddlers (though I had offered in an earlier post that gun education would need to be part of the overall solution) but you tried to obscure shooting by toddlers in what I said though it was not addressed within the criminal or mental health communities and by your own evidence seemed to toddlers made up part of a number of 660 shooting deaths in 2010 of which over 31000 total deaths occurred (of which a HUGE proportion were criminals and peopel with mental health issues).

So now given all the above what is your practical solutions that is not virtue signalling moral superiority over Americans that would push back against total ban on guns (like what has NOT worked in Chicago) and is against their Constitution AND you bought up toddlers, what in what I said had anything to do with toddlers or disclaims what I said in respect to toddlers?

No.  No and no.  People with mental health issues are no more likely to shoot people and even to commit other crimes than people without mental health issues.   The "fact" you are representing is a baseless trope from the NRA.  All the statistics and research opposes what you have said.

You should try getting your facts from places other than Breitbart.

Meanwhile.  Remember that thing you said about a bombing in Britain proving that gun controls wouldn't work in the USA?

Could you run that by me in a bit more detail?  I'm still trying to get my head around it.

How many people who suicided or have committed mass shootings have been known to be suffering and/or taking psychotropic drugs? Any figures?

Yes, I remember what I said and not what you are representing and no I will not run it by you again because you are unable to comprehend logic when it all but kicks you in the nuts. People will always do bad things and rather than suggest people behave better OR put a governmental heel on the good and bad alike, rational people will look for rational solutions. You can't, because you are a fucking idiot.

Is that clear enough?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 02:29:23 PM

Some time ago? http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/manchester-arena-incident/index.html
...blah blah blah....

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"


You are saying that if someone breaks a law in country "a" then it is better not to have a law about something different in country "b"? 

A bomb in Britain is not the same issue as gun violence in the US.  Unless that violence was being done by a bomb instead of a gun, and by a terrorist instead of a citizen, and happened in the UK instead of the US.  But for the purposes of this ongoing comedy, let's assume that they are the same thing.

If someone speeds in a car then it's best to not have speed limits at all because, hey, someone broke them anyway?  Shall we take down all the speed limit signs and tell people they're safer if they go faster?

Or are you saying that Britain is safer if there were no controls on who has bombs?  If everyone has a bomb then they can blow up terrorists if they get attacked?  Is that what you're saying?

I can see no link between these two situations.  What is the link?  Why are these two things connected?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 02:32:27 PM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 19, 2017, 02:46:50 PM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 19, 2017, 03:20:40 PM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 02:39:33 AM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLuLFDkYVL8

So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?



Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 20, 2017, 02:45:47 AM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLuLFDkYVL8

So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?


Gun control isn't about taking hunting guns away from anyone.  Gun control is about regulating the sale and resale of guns.   For some reason every time you hear the words "gun control" your brain is translating to "gun ban".   


Now stop changing the subject.  Let's get back to your supposition that laws against bomb making in the UK demonstrate that gun controls shouldn't be effective in the USA. 

I just wondered.... Instead of comparing bomb laws in the UK with gun laws in the US, why didn't you compare GUN laws in the UK with gun laws in the US? That would be a direct comparison.

Shall we run through the numbers about gun violence once the UK had a national gun control policy banning assault weapons?   Do you want to guess what the numbers show?  I think you already know, Al.

That's what's so funny about you.  You know you are supporting bullshit, but you keep going.  And it is so much fun to watch you change the subject from one logical dead end to the next.

So what NRA meme are you bringing up next?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 03:28:44 AM
...and I note that you have had to change the frame of your argument to people trying to ban guns.  No one arguing against you has said this.  I have been careful to use the phrase "gun control".  That is what is being discussed here.

The UK has never banned gun ownership.  It limits the type and supply of guns. 

There...  I have explained my argument in detail.  Now do the same.

Okay/ Gun control, being that Americans have banned automatic weapons and will NOT agree to semi-automatic weapon banning and will push back hard enough on any major gun limitations or restrictions AND as seen in Chicago, that gun control is not entirely effective. What PRACTICAL solutions would you suggest?

You're just one cliche after another.

Try and think real hard about this....

Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

No think about this real hard. Many of the Liberal population in these areas are gun owners. When work is scarce they hunt to supplement bought food.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLuLFDkYVL8

So this is not simply Republican issue/very Democrat AND even were it, such gun controls would NOT work because about half of America is NOT going to allow gun control.

So again, taking into account reality NOT what you would like. What PRACTICAL solutions are you offering or are you just virtue signalling?


Gun control isn't about taking hunting guns away from anyone.  Gun control is about regulating the sale and resale of guns.   For some reason every time you hear the words "gun control" your brain is translating to "gun ban".   


Now stop changing the subject.  Let's get back to your supposition that laws against bomb making in the UK demonstrate that gun controls shouldn't be effective in the USA. 

I just wondered.... Instead of comparing bomb laws in the UK with gun laws in the US, why didn't you compare GUN laws in the UK with gun laws in the US? That would be a direct comparison.

Shall we run through the numbers about gun violence once the UK had a national gun control policy banning assault weapons?   Do you want to guess what the numbers show?  I think you already know, Al.

That's what's so funny about you.  You know you are supporting bullshit, but you keep going.  And it is so much fun to watch you change the subject from one logical dead end to the next.

So what NRA meme are you bringing up next?

OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?
What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?
What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?
How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?
What is the gun culture like in both?

Are they directly comparable?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 20, 2017, 04:49:17 AM

Sorry, Al,   but just couldn't resist  answering the no-brainer

 
How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the UK?
:apondering:  about the same, I'd say

Quote
Are they directly comparable?

   :apondering: Yep! Absolutely. x=x  (though not at all sure I could offer a formal proof of that statement)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Fun With Matches on November 20, 2017, 04:57:31 AM
 :laugh:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 05:10:15 AM

Sorry, Al,   but just couldn't resist  answering the no-brainer

 
How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the UK?
:apondering:  about the same, I'd say

Quote
Are they directly comparable?

   :apondering: Yep! Absolutely. x=x  (though not at all sure I could offer a formal proof of that statement)

Jesus! That was not well done was it. Fixed now.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 20, 2017, 05:14:56 AM
Only a good man with a bomb can stop a bad man with a bomb. It's a known fact.

Actually the illegal manufacture of explosives requires ingredients. By tracking unusual patterns in the sale of those ingredients it is often possible to catch would-be bombers before an attack. Devastating as they can be, deaths caused by illegal bombs in civilian hands are a tiny number compared to deaths caused by legal guns.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 05:33:19 AM
Only a good man with a bomb can stop a bad man with a bomb. It's a known fact.

Actually the illegal manufacture of explosives requires ingredients. By tracking unusual patterns in the sale of those ingredients it is often possible to catch would-be bombers before an attack. Devastating as they can be, deaths caused by illegal bombs in civilian hands are a tiny number compared to deaths caused by legal guns.

....Preventative measures and working with what you have to work with is better. Vetting of immigrants for possible terrorist links, education of citizens about unattended bags or packages being potentially dangerous, tracking of potential bomb-making parts and ingredients being bought in UK or imported in the UK and removing bins from heavily frequented public spaces are all practical and constructive moves.

Similarly when it comes to guns in US. Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death

These things are NOT perfect and will not stop gun death BUT will substantially reduce it whereby "Americans should ban guns, will not"

Are you sure you are arguing against me?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 20, 2017, 07:08:10 AM
Despite having laws against drink driving, sometimes people still drink drive and cause accidents.

By "Al logic" that means it's better to not have drink driving controls at all.  You should introduce kids to drink driving at a young age.  People still dying in accidents?  That's because they're not drinking enough.  If someones coming the other way drunk on the wrong side of the road then you're safer if you're drunk too and you're weaving all over the road.  It makes you harder to hit.

It's entirely logic-Al.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 20, 2017, 11:35:42 AM
OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?

Over 700,000 registered gun owners in the UK.  About 1% of the population.  You need a gun, you get a licence, the police check you out.  You get a gun.  The issue being no one is judged to need a military style assault weapon with a high capacity magazine.  Deer in the UK don't shoot back at hunters.

What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?

An "amendment".  When laws are no longer fit for purpose you change them.  The second amendment.  It's an amendment.  If ever something showed how things can change with time it would be an "amendment".  You amend things. "Amendment".  Look it up in the dictionary.

We used to have lots of laws in 1791 that we no longer have.  It's amazing what kind of social progress we've made, and the same goes for Australia should you ever choose to venture outdoors.

What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?

Gosh.  You have me there.  We don't have any conservatives in the UK.  Oh wait!  I was thinking of backwardland where everything is the other way round.

We have a Conservative prime minister.  And a Conservative government running the country.  They are called "The Conservative Party" which kind of gives the whole game away as there is a clue to their political affiliation in their name.


How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?

Nothing is ingrained.  Remember the word "amendment"?  Laws change. Otherwise slavery would still be thing.

Are they directly comparable?

Yes.... by everyone on the planet except the gun lobby and their court jester.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 02:45:49 PM
No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

The only thing is, of course, this is tried just about every major incident and sometimes without there being a major incident. It gets knocked down consistently and has for many decades. The reasons are obvious. This is a reality NOT what you want it to be. US is NOT UK and nor is the cultural norms you hold tight to your heart the same in the US. So it would be beyond stupid to consider that their whole cultural and legal underpinnings would radically change. So if we remove this radical notion entirely what are we left with in reality?

Oh, I know Al's actual logic (not the bullshit you are trying to strawman to me).

That is "America is what it is and their culture is what it is. Basing what we know and can see in reality, what could make a difference to their society and culture in respect to gun control that would be reality-based and realistic"

Quote
Better background checks and compliance auditing, gun education, better mental health services, actively seeking to remove guns out of the guns of criminals and having a means to cross-reference when a gun owner has started to suffer from a hazardous mental health issue to remove guns, are all practical and would reduce gun death

It is not perfect but reality is not perfect."

Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 20, 2017, 03:01:49 PM
No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

....then some tedious shit which to be honest I couldn't be bothered to read,,,,,, it's not like it's going to be anything that we've not heard before.  blah blah....

....Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.

Why are you putting quotes around text and attributing it to me when it is not what I said?  Every time you post you have to re-frame what has been said to you because otherwise your own arguments hold no water. 


The Toa of Al.

Al:  Let's compare bomb laws in the UK with Gun laws in the US.

4AD:  Surely you should compare gun laws in the UK with gun laws in the US.

Al:  But they're not the same thing.

Do you realise what an ass you sound?  You can't come up with a single statistic or fact to back up anything you say.  Just innuendo and gas and the false logic of a child.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 03:10:29 PM
OKay so they are directly comparable are they?:

How many millions of people in UK currently have guns, compared to the US?

Over 700,000 registered gun owners in the UK.  About 1% of the population.  You need a gun, you get a licence, the police check you out.  You get a gun.  The issue being no one is judged to need a military style assault weapon with a high capacity magazine.  Deer in the UK don't shoot back at hunters.

So much wrong here. What is an "assault weapon"? Anything that assaults is a weapon. You mean assault rifle I guess? But you would be wrong again because that is a term used specifically for automatic rifles - which ARE banned in US. So what the fuck are you talking about. I do not think even you know. But let me be charitable and throw you a rope. Semi-Automatic weapons are certainly legal and hunters would argue that they DO in fact need them and the lawmakers have backed their position forever.
Whilst UK has 1% gun ownership, it has a different culture to America and few in UK get the cultural attachment to guns that Americans in general and a people have. America will NEVER have 1% gun ownership and UK has this. Ought to tell you something.

What is the corresponding Constititional Amendment in UK stating that all men have a right to bear arms?

An "amendment".  When laws are no longer fit for purpose you change them.  The second amendment.  It's an amendment.  If ever something showed how things can change with time it would be an "amendment".  You amend things. "Amendment".  Look it up in the dictionary.

We used to have lots of laws in 1791 that we no longer have.  It's amazing what kind of social progress we've made, and the same goes for Australia should you ever choose to venture outdoors.

In other words there is none.

We are not discussing social progress. Nor Australia. We are discussing the practicalities of reducing gun deaths in America. Australia has no big problem with gun violence outside of some gangs in Sydney and Melbourne. I travel outside a lot how you are trying to tie my reality in with the reality of a land half a world away is a bit odd, to say the least.

What percentage of UK are Conservatives and with Conservative values?

Gosh.  You have me there.  We don't have any conservatives in the UK.  Oh wait!  I was thinking of backwardland where everything is the other way round.

We have a Conservative prime minister.  And a Conservative government running the country.  They are called "The Conservative Party" which kind of gives the whole game away as there is a clue to their political affiliation in their name.

Indeed and our "Conservative" party is the Liberal Party. So that proves me right. Because all Conservative parties have exactly the same values and political align perfectly.

What? Don't they? But is that not what you are trying to do - paint them as interchangeably the same?

Is the Party of Thersa May or Malcolm Turnbull the same as the Republican Party in the US politically? Are May and Turnbull like Donald Trump? In fact, Hillary Clinton politically is very close to Turnbull and probably not far removed from May whereas our Labour Party is closer to the Bernie Sanders and the like.

So maybe try that again?

How many in UK would consider removal or limitation on guns as a direct path to Governmental Tyrany of which the US has ingrained into their Constitution?

Nothing is ingrained.  Remember the word "amendment"?  Laws change. Otherwise slavery would still be thing.

Nope, not nearly good enough. This is a cop out. Maybe one day America will become only 50% gun ownership, never say never. So if you start a campaign now, to encourage people to throw away or turn in their weapons, then in maybe another 300 years if your efforts are vigourously carried on, it will have a knock on effect and ...

We are dealing with the here and now. Reality not wishing for pots of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Are they directly comparable?

Yes.... by everyone on the planet except the gun lobby and their court jester.

If you HONESTLY believe they are then YOU are the court jester.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 20, 2017, 03:16:46 PM
No, no, no. You don't get to pull this Al logic bullshit unopposed.

FourAce logic is pretty evident.
"Here in UK we don't have lots of gun violence because we only have 1% of the guns that US has. US needs change their laws and the solution to things is for the gun control friendly Congressmen and Congresswomen to enter a bill to do that, into Congress and change the law"

....then some tedious shit which to be honest I couldn't be bothered to read,,,,,, it's not like it's going to be anything that we've not heard before.  blah blah....

....Al's logic shits all over FourAce's logic which is virtue signalling at best and at worst pie in the sky fantasies claiming to be a serious reality-based discussion.

Why are you putting quotes around text and attributing it to me when it is not what I said?  Every time you post you have to re-frame what has been said to you because otherwise your own arguments hold no water. 


The Toa of Al.

Al:  Let's compare bomb laws in the UK with Gun laws in the US.

4AD:  Surely you should compare gun laws in the UK with gun laws in the US.

Al:  But they're not the same thing.

Do you realise what an ass you sound?  You can't come up with a single statistic or fact to back up anything you say.  Just innuendo and gas and the false logic of a child.

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 21, 2017, 01:11:41 AM
FAD has a good point, Al.

Syntactically , quote marks serve the exact same function as the quote box. They're meant to contain a direct word-for-word quote;  not a paraphrase, and certainly not a mocking parody.

What you're actually doing here is misquoting somebody to make them look silly.   If people did the same to you, you'd call them "dishonest" wouldn't you?  and we'd never hear the end of it.

 I dunno.  I've seen you doing that time and again, and it surprises me every time, because  I think that kind of thing is beneath you, as a rule.  I suspect that you've somehow misgrasped the meaning  of quote marks? Maybe playing fast-and-loose with them is normal in Oz?

I'd give up on this if I were you. You're taking an unpopular position on this issue and predictablty getting hammerered. But then, yeah, yeah, I know you're stubborn as heck (aren't we all?) and will defend your opinions to the death as a matter of principle.  Enjoy the fireworks.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 21, 2017, 02:15:56 AM
FAD has a good point, Al.

Syntactically , quote marks serve the exact same function as the quote box. They're meant to contain a direct word-for-word quote;  not a paraphrase, and certainly not a mocking parody.

What you're actually doing here is misquoting somebody to make them look silly.   If people did the same to you, you'd call them "dishonest" wouldn't you?  and we'd never hear the end of it.

 I dunno.  I've seen you doing that time and again, and it surprises me every time, because  I think that kind of thing is beneath you, as a rule.  I suspect that you've somehow misgrasped the meaning  of quote marks? Maybe playing fast-and-loose with them is normal in Oz?

I'd give up on this if I were you. You're taking an unpopular position on this issue and predictablty getting hammerered. But then, yeah, yeah, I know you're stubborn as heck (aren't we all?) and will defend your opinions to the death as a matter of principle.  Enjoy the fireworks.

No, if i want to quote what someone said I either find the quote nest or do a generic quote block. If I have it in quotation marks it is the same as say....okay an example:

Jim was very "friendly" with the receptionist. Is this the correct use of quotation marks? What is it telling us, what is it not telling us? Is it honest or is it not? Would any Walkie's in the vicinity call this out as dishonest? I don't think so.

Anything else you want to tell me about my motives or do you think you may have misjudged this time around as well?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Walkie on November 21, 2017, 03:20:21 AM
well done Al. You've found a different usage of quote marks. But in your example, that difference is obvious, isn't it? Nobody would think  that you're directly quoting Jim... (well, not  necessarily, though you might be, but that's clearly not the point.  The point is something like: we could call that behaviour friendly , nudge , nudge) Compare your "quotes" of FAD.  Not so obvious is it?  You've conflated those two different usages in such a way that  confusion could easily arise.

Actually I wasn't accusing you of being  "dishonest", Al, just pointing out that you would apply that label like a shot. I was - very clearly- wondering if some kind of  misconception or  difference in usage  was responsible for the observed effect. A nd in the light of  your reply, that actually does appear to be the case.

You might think that the handy provision of quote boxes on this forum  completely obviates the accepted function of quote marks as indicating an actual quote.  But that's not the general perception. People still use quote marks  as per normal, too.  If you're going to apply your own, idiosyncratic  set of rules, regardless , then you're going to confuse and/or annoy people.   But  hey! your funeral. Like I said, enjoy the fireworks.

I'm going to butt out now, because I finally know where you're coming from with your quote thing  at long bleedin' last.   And you now know that I disagree with your rationale,  and why I disagree. End of convo. Not worth having a protracted  argument about, IMO.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 21, 2017, 04:20:23 AM

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 21, 2017, 04:41:50 AM
well done Al. You've found a different usage of quote marks. But in your example, that difference is obvious, isn't it? Nobody would think  that you're directly quoting Jim... (well, not  necessarily, though you might be, but that's clearly not the point.  The point is something like: we could call that behaviour friendly , nudge , nudge) Compare your "quotes" of FAD.  Not so obvious is it?  You've conflated those two different usages in such a way that  confusion could easily arise.

Actually I wasn't accusing you of being  "dishonest", Al, just pointing out that you would apply that label like a shot. I was - very clearly- wondering if some kind of  misconception or  difference in usage  was responsible for the observed effect. A nd in the light of  your reply, that actually does appear to be the case.

You might think that the handy provision of quote boxes on this forum  completely obviates the accepted function of quote marks as indicating an actual quote.  But that's not the general perception. People still use quote marks  as per normal, too.  If you're going to apply your own, idiosyncratic  set of rules, regardless , then you're going to confuse and/or annoy people.   But  hey! your funeral. Like I said, enjoy the fireworks.

I'm going to butt out now, because I finally know where you're coming from with your quote thing  at long bleedin' last.   And you now know that I disagree with your rationale,  and why I disagree. End of convo. Not worth having a protracted  argument about, IMO.

I thought it had been obvious and I go to great lengths to skewer people with their own words when they have actually said something verbatim, by searching madly for where I remembered they said something, then using the quote blocks. If I want to mock them or speak paraphrase them in NOT their "actual" words, I use quotations marks to denounce this intent.

Not a big one. If people were confused by this, I had not realised and it was not done to do so. But if people were confused and now know...yay....I guess.

Now what interesting snark has FourAce mustered....?

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 21, 2017, 04:49:17 AM

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 21, 2017, 05:18:54 AM

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?

I'll give you one point for the fact that US gun culture is not the same as UK gun culture.  Our gun culture doesn't kill 30000 people a year and spark almost one mass shooting per day.  So yeah, you can say that they're different.

Do you have any FACTS at all?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 21, 2017, 06:25:59 AM

No my arguments are fine and consistent.

Essentially your argument is "It is outrageous and I am outraged. Everything is equivalent and Americans have to enact gun control" mine is "Whatever, Americans won't for a variety of cultural and Constitutional reasons and so rather than basing things on what will not work, the way to reducing casualties of gun violence is to work with what will work. Gun control has been voted down continuously over decades and will continue to be, so going there as a default is impractical at best and moronic at worst"

You did it again in your very next post.  You attributed words to me that I didn't say and put them in quotes.  I accuse you of re-framing peoples arguments and you do it again.  Quality.

And once again your conclusion is nothing but a repetition of the same old claptrap.  You have no facts to back your argument.  You have no statistics to back your argument.  You have no logic to back your argument.  All you have is argument.

I look forward to your next deliberate misquote with an alarmingly growing sense of mirth and amusement.

I will keep doing it too FourAce. You know what I would do were I you? I would probably get cross online about it and tell me how bad it was because I will listen to you and take you very seriously.

So the crux of this whinge was that I was consistent with my argument. Cool.

Next, you want me to back my argument with statistics. That is an interesting a proposition?  So you want me to back with statistics that US culture is different to UK culture? You want me to back that America is not going to go to UK level gun ownership anytime soon? What exactly are you saying and what elements of my proposition do you imagine ought to be backed by statistics and if so, what particular kind of statistics?

Look I am up for it if you are going to stop being silly and make rational points. What are you asking to be evidenced via statistics?

I'll give you one point for the fact that US gun culture is not the same as UK gun culture.  Our gun culture doesn't kill 30000 people a year and spark almost one mass shooting per day.  So yeah, you can say that they're different.

Do you have any FACTS at all?

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?


Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 21, 2017, 01:56:59 PM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 21, 2017, 02:37:55 PM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 21, 2017, 04:15:33 PM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 22, 2017, 03:33:00 AM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 22, 2017, 04:01:04 AM
Wow! I feel a real kinship with you now. This is what it feels like to be stupid.

But now for those other points.

You rather missed my point about gun controls being a bad thing. Essentially you thought wrong. My point was a little more nuanced so I see how you may have missed it entirely. The whole gun control thing is a crock of shit and the reason is that on a practical level it would not work and it only services to make those virtue signaling this outrage and such feel a warm glow of smug righteous indignation that only the morally superior feel and the virtuous.

If they enact gun controls at a governmental level there will be pushback and it will go to the Supreme Court where Constitutionalists and Republican majority will overturn it. That is IF it actually gets to that stage and you know it won't.

If they make the states responsible for it, it will be enacted in places like Washington, California, New York, Illinois and the collective small Northern states on the Eastern seaboard. Most of the rest will be happy to keep the guns and the bad element will illegally purchase the guns and bring them into the states where they are limited.

People are likely to get all "out of my cold dead hands around it" and any time the government may seek to limit their rights they will consider it an attack on the Constitution by a tyranical government.

Even as a theory or imagine if, it is rather far-fetched and simply like saying "If we all were nice and treated each other with decency, there would be no murder and theft. We would be a Utopia." Same kind of bullshit. All it is saying is, I am virtuous and morally better and placing myself above others to make myself seem awesome. I am pretty "whatever" about your efforts

People in America would not respect the gun control limits you are suggesting. It will not happen.


Quote
decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?
You DID say that right? So Americans are allowed to own automatic rifles right? Yes or no? If YES is the answer then you are not in a position where you can actually converse about this as you are not well informed. If NO is the answer, then you will have to cede this point as dishonest or incorrect and we will get to another point of contention.

Will gun controls will reduce violence? Better ask the citizens of Chicago 600+ deaths this year in an area where there is gun control laws AND taking into effect for reasons I have already suggest it is virtually impossible to get nation-wide gun control laws , we will imagine a state like (I dunno) Virginia gets strict gun controls. What happens then? Does the gun violence rate go up or down? Where do the guns that people have that are limited go? Where do people in that state wanting to use controlled guns go? What really changes in the statistics and why do you imagine it may? What statistics have you to back this hypothetical?

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on November 22, 2017, 05:37:32 AM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.

Maybe they were reading one of Al's never-ending posts, waiting for an actual point that made a bit of sense, and suddenly death seemed like a pretty good option?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 22, 2017, 06:55:02 AM

Are you saying that ANYTHING I said was false and if so let's argue those "false points"? Of course, IF you are saying they are simply things you disagree with then that is fine but do not dismiss everything I said as not factual.

Here is something for you to chew over. US is a relatively new country in comparison to England. Part of US history is a large portion of the citizens were escaping religious persecution. It also previously belonged to England as a colony before they  forcibly became independent from England. There was fighting to establish and maintain its borders to its individual states.

Their history has been founded on protecting themselves from persecution and in being free men. The Constitutional right to bear arms is grounded in the want to allow the free citizens the ability to defend themselves. Who from? From a Tyrannical Government. Maybe like they did with England? Maybe if their government persecuted them like the governments persecuted so many of them when they fled Europe to escape religious persecution? Regardless of who they were thinking or what hypothetical instance THEY would reckon equated to tyrannical, they wanted their citizens to have that protection and to be able to have the arms available to establish a militia if need be.

These are fact. We cannot read their mind to understand in which specific way they meant it nor what would be excluded their definition in respect to terms like "tyrannical" and "militia" and so on. But we have historical context and we have their words and it is in English. So we have facts.

So...America have a historical tradition and legally enforced history of protecting a constitutional right for it's citizens to bear arms which in no small measure is to counter any efforts from it's government to persecute its citizens.

Does England have that? Are they comparable in this way? Is this fact?

Regurgitating the same old gun lobby shite doesn't make a fact Al.

For about the tenth time I have to remind you that I haven't heard anyone mention a ban on guns.  That seems to be the thing you are complaining about but it only occurs in your re-framed arguments.

So hows uncontrolled gun ownership working out for people?  Are they protected against government?  It doesn't appear so to anyone outside (except for the gun lobby's court jester no doubt).  Meanwhile a mass shooting every day. Wow. That's real protection.

As for the rest of your garbage, it's funny that an Australian gets his world history from the gun lobby.  I thought the Australian school system was sharper than that but I guess you were off that day.  The state of the nation 250 years ago has fuck all to do with the state of society now.  It used to be enshrined in law that the British had to practice archery every Sunday so we could fight France who we were at war with on and off for a thousand years.  Guess what?  We don;t have a longbow in every house now.  WE EVOLVED.

Do you have any original thinking to share or just the same tired old dogma?

(And just to remind you, "gun control".  Not "gun ban".  Try and keep that in your mind long enough for you to post again.  And quotes are for use when you "quote".  It's so simple.)

What is NOT fact here and is shite? The history is shite? You can call anything shite or nopt fact but unless you are going to point to specifics it just looks like you do not like what is said because you do not like where that leads the argument.

NOW, you do have one thing right. I am NOT Australian. It matters to me very little if Americans have guns or not. I am not American. I do not think I will ever go to America. Their culture is not mine.

Pay attention to that last sentence.

You can say anything you like about how wrong it is or what have you. It is virtue signaling and screaming into the wind. If it is simply a case of the gun lobby, that is not a big thing. They do have a large membership but they are just a large interest group. So the solution is simple. Next time there is a tragedy someone should bring up a bill to not ban but simply limit guns. Now being that all I said was complete "shite" and "non-factual", then Senators will NOT risk the outrage and backlash from the constituents that they represent, and they will sign the bill in. The NRA will not be able to convince many Senators that their good favour is more valuable that the ire from the people from the state they represent.

See what an easy solution to gun control that is? Being that none of what I said is factual and it was all shite, the bill will get passed and it will be a quick trip to removing conceal carry, semiautomatic licences, and all that good stuff. I am all on board. Because what I said was shit, all of this will happen because it will be shown as NOT moral virtue signaling but rather the natural consequence of a society with any of those cultural underpinnings that I suggested that may prevent it.

Right? Don't back down on me here. Will it work or not? Has it worked whenever ANY Democratic Senator has brought in such bills and if so how often and how many times have they tried?

Why are we discussing this?  I thought you were telling us why gun controls were a bad thing?  But then you moved on to why they can't happen.

Have you ceded the point that decades of uncontrolled gun ownership has caused this?

Have you ceded the point that gun controls will reduce gun violence?

Have you ceded the point that there is no statistical link between mental health and gun violence?

I'll move on and discuss history and politics if you want, but can we clear up the basics before you move us on again?

Okay, I WILL cede a point because you seem desperate for that vindication and I will make it a big one.

I admit that there is NO statistical link between gun violence and mental health. I mean using Odeon's generously provided link allowing my laziness in my own research:

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010 "Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10"

None of these people suiciding 0/19392 has ANY mental health issues. There is NO statistical link there or to be honest even the remotest suggestion that people deliberately blowing holes in their head to kill themselves have the slightest thing wrong with them in respect to mental health.

I am with you. Let's defend against such silly notions.

Maybe they were reading one of Al's never-ending posts, waiting for an actual point that made a bit of sense, and suddenly death seemed like a pretty good option?

Maybe. (Was that it? Really?)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 22, 2017, 09:56:00 AM
Al.  You change the subject again.  The thread title - and the discussion- is about gun violence, not suicide.

Have you now ceded the whole gun violence argument and you want to move on to an entirely different subject?

Typical Al.  Misquote. Re-frame.  Change the subject.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 22, 2017, 01:30:41 PM
Did he ever get to the bottom of his bombs and guns thing? I can't be arsed to read his junk.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 22, 2017, 01:52:24 PM
Did he ever get to the bottom of his bombs and guns thing? I can't be arsed to read his junk.

To be honest I wish I hadn't started reading his crap.  All it's done is reinforce what I already knew about him.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 22, 2017, 03:19:38 PM
Al.  You change the subject again.  The thread title - and the discussion- is about gun violence, not suicide.

Have you now ceded the whole gun violence argument and you want to move on to an entirely different subject?

Typical Al.  Misquote. Re-frame.  Change the subject.

Mate, you won't even allow me to agree with you. Jesus! Most of gun death comes from suicides from well-adjusted people before they violently spray their heads everywhere and leave it for others to deal with the consequences of the violent action. The next group of people is homicides where there is deliberate intent to kill and we HAVE to say again that most people who deliberately and violently kill another person with a gun in America are perfectly rational and reasonable people with a very good mental health standing.

I am all with you mate. It was a good argument and how could I not agree and cede the point. It was what you wanted right? You are happy? Yes?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Parts on November 23, 2017, 09:16:43 AM
Al.  You change the subject again.  The thread title - and the discussion- is about gun violence, not suicide.

Have you now ceded the whole gun violence argument and you want to move on to an entirely different subject?

Typical Al.  Misquote. Re-frame.  Change the subject.

Mate, you won't even allow me to agree with you. Jesus! Most of gun death comes from suicides from well-adjusted people before they violently spray their heads everywhere and leave it for others to deal with the consequences of the violent action. The next group of people is homicides where there is deliberate intent to kill and we HAVE to say again that most people who deliberately and violently kill another person with a gun in America are perfectly rational and reasonable people with a very good mental health standing.

I am all with you mate. It was a good argument and how could I not agree and cede the point. It was what you wanted right? You are happy? Yes?


Two thirds are suicides Link (https://www.bradycampaign.org/the-truth-about-suicide-guns)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 10:34:34 AM
It was actually saying that acknowledging that bad things will happen in society. Murders, rapes, assaults, fraud, theft...and bad people will do these things and will impunity and without respect for ANY restriction.

It's not what you started out with but sure, let's dismantle this one instead:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.30def2356189

Bad people? Toddlers?

Firearms accidents are at historical lows in the US despite a steady increase in the number of guns.

What's your next lame argument??
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 10:44:16 AM
Here's a different way of looking at the problem:

Quote from: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Do read the rest of that page.

They are using the dishonest tactic of "gun deaths", 2/3rds of which are suicides.

There's roughly 10,000 murders per year in the US, about 80% of which are gang related.

When you eliminate those, the US homicide rate looks pretty close to that of Europe.

Quote
You might also want to read pages such as this one (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/), on gun use for self-defence.

Clearly biased source.

You know, that whole "you have to get your lab settings right" thing??   :hahaha:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 10:47:31 AM
That's a lot of words. I'm sure it was interesting.

I was simply referencing the killer toddler issue.

There is no "killer toddler issue", accidental firearm deaths and injuries are at all time historical lows.

You're just reading outrage clickbait, garbage journalism.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 11:01:13 AM
Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

You've actually stumbled upon a good argument without realizing it.

Let's take your logic to the next level.

Let's say the US passes strict gun control nationwide.

We have a border to the south that you Limeys don't have where we couldn't stop 12 million+ Mexicans from coming into our country. That's not to mention the millions of tons of illegal drugs that come across our southern border too. While were at it, we have millions of tons of drugs coming into the US from China. Yeah, we can't stop that either.

So how do you propose to stop guns from entering the US illegally, I'm gladly waiting for your answer.   ;)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 11:06:54 AM
I'd give up on this if I were you. You're taking an unpopular position on this issue and predictablty getting hammerered.

Does being unpopular cause it to be factually wrong??
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Parts on November 23, 2017, 11:19:52 AM
Chicago brought in tough controls.  But the Republican states around it didn't.  So people get guns from the nearby uncontrolled states and they end up in Chicago.

See?  That's how logic works. Cause and effect.

You've actually stumbled upon a good argument without realizing it.

Let's take your logic to the next level.

Let's say the US passes strict gun control nationwide.

We have a border to the south that you Limeys don't have where we couldn't stop 12 million+ Mexicans from coming into our country. That's not to mention the millions of tons of illegal drugs that come across our southern border too. While were at it, we have millions of tons of drugs coming into the US from China. Yeah, we can't stop that either.

So how do you propose to stop guns from entering the US illegally, I'm gladly waiting for your answer.   ;)

Or control the ones that are already here for that matter because not everybody will just turn the ones in if they were made illegal. 
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 11:23:27 AM
Or control the ones that are already here for that matter because not everybody will just turn the ones in if they were made illegal.

Not sure exactly what you mean.  :dunno:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 23, 2017, 11:49:21 AM
Or control the ones that are already here for that matter because not everybody will just turn the ones in if they were made illegal.

Not sure exactly what you mean.  :dunno:
You asked the question of how to control incoming guns, and Parts seems to be asking how to control the ones that are already here.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on November 23, 2017, 12:15:17 PM
There's roughly 10,000 murders per year in the US, about 80% of which are gang related.

When you eliminate those, the US homicide rate looks pretty close to that of Europe.
Thinking murder is still a valid point to be made of American culture though. About 70% of US homicides are gun related, so even if all gun homicides were to all disappear, it's true the US homicide rate would be similar to a couple of European countries, but still about .5-2 times higher than the majority of them.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 23, 2017, 12:56:26 PM
Here's a different way of looking at the problem:

Quote from: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Do read the rest of that page.

They are using the dishonest tactic of "gun deaths", 2/3rds of which are suicides.

There's roughly 10,000 murders per year in the US, about 80% of which are gang related.

When you eliminate those, the US homicide rate looks pretty close to that of Europe.

Quote
You might also want to read pages such as this one (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/), on gun use for self-defence.

Clearly biased source.

You know, that whole "you have to get your lab settings right" thing??   :hahaha:

Yes, I know, but do you?

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.

And you are wrong, yet again. It's practically a given when you try to argue rather than name-drop.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 23, 2017, 01:40:07 PM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory. 

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 01:59:13 PM

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.


Yes, I looked at the links and even they admit their own data is suspect.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 02:00:22 PM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 23, 2017, 02:43:36 PM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 02:51:12 PM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 23, 2017, 03:02:11 PM
Gun control, gun control, gun control....the only way to reduce gun death is to limit the size and amount of guns people can own ....no, how about enforcing existing gun rules, re-education and taking guns off the people that are not allowed them (mentally ill and criminals)?

Could THAT make a difference?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 23, 2017, 04:19:48 PM

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.


Yes, I looked at the links and even they admit their own data is suspect.

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a person who thinks two million is only a handful.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 23, 2017, 04:28:23 PM

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.


Yes, I looked at the links and even they admit their own data is suspect.

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a person who thinks two million is only a handful.

You keep misspelling 3%. It's almost as if you have a verbal tic or something.   :hahaha:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 23, 2017, 04:33:21 PM

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.


Yes, I looked at the links and even they admit their own data is suspect.

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a person who thinks two million is only a handful.

You keep misspelling 3%. It's almost as if you have a verbal tic or something.   :hahaha:

Any other excuses you wish to embarrass yourself with? I'll admit that Al's bombs vs guns thing is hard to beat but you're making an excellent effort here.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 24, 2017, 02:12:07 AM

Quote from: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
So, do we have a gang problem or a gun problem? Data collected by the National Gang Center, the government agency responsible for cataloging gang violence, makes clear that it’s the latter. There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

Links on that page.


Yes, I looked at the links and even they admit their own data is suspect.

Sorry, I forgot I was talking to a person who thinks two million is only a handful.

You keep misspelling 3%. It's almost as if you have a verbal tic or something.   :hahaha:

Any other excuses you wish to embarrass yourself with? I'll admit that Al's bombs vs guns thing is hard to beat but you're making an excellent effort here.

I did not embarrass myself at all with that. If someone was foolish enough to try to extrapolate what I was not saying from what I was saying then not only is there no embarrassment nor need to counter a position I never made in the first place but they have only their own foolishness and any embarrassment THEY feel?

But I will not judge you unfairly just yet. I have no idea if this is what you are trying to do. (As unwise as it may be in inviting me out of just one thread that I have contained nastier disagreements with you). So please explain Odeon, nicely :)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 24, 2017, 05:09:04 AM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.

I know precisely what you mean but I want you to verbalise it.

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other people people with dark skin?

Is that what you meant?  It only counts as human/murder if it's white folk?  Is that the point you're dancing around?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 24, 2017, 05:22:00 AM

I did not embarrass myself at all with that. If someone was foolish enough to try to extrapolate what I was not saying from what I was saying then not only is there no embarrassment nor need to counter a position I never made in the first place but they have only their own foolishness and any embarrassment THEY feel?

But I will not judge you unfairly just yet. I have no idea if this is what you are trying to do. (As unwise as it may be in inviting me out of just one thread that I have contained nastier disagreements with you). So please explain Odeon, nicely :)

No one extrapolated anything.   Your post is below.  Why don't you explain what your point was if we all got it so very wrong.  It's meaning looks clear to me.

To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 24, 2017, 05:34:19 AM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.

I know precisely what you mean but I want you to verbalise it.

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other people people with dark skin?

Is that what you meant?  It only counts as human/murder if it's white folk?  Is that the point you're dancing around?

He has not said anything of the sort. He was talking as far as I saw about institutionlised gang culture who make up a small portion of the overall population but are such a large portion of the overall homicide/gun violence problem. If he was talking about the gangs that were most violent in Prison culture, he may have mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood as well. If he was talking about gangs that were responsible for skewing the number in drug running and the threat they posed with large scale distribution and standover tactics and such maybe he would talk about various Bikie Gangs or even the various Mafia groups including Italian and Russia Mafia groups and Triads and Tongs.

As it is he seemed to identify the gangs most involved in gun violence and I think he picked it rather well. NONE of this makes ANY point about race......AT ALL.

He did not make ANY racist point NOT even subtlety. Someone DID though. That was YOU. Again. Why is that?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 24, 2017, 06:04:18 AM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.

I know precisely what you mean but I want you to verbalise it.

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other people people with dark skin?

Is that what you meant?  It only counts as human/murder if it's white folk?  Is that the point you're dancing around?

He has not said anything of the sort. He was talking as far as I saw about institutionlised gang culture who make up a small portion of the overall population but are such a large portion of the overall homicide/gun violence problem. If he was talking about the gangs that were most violent in Prison culture, he may have mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood as well. If he was talking about gangs that were responsible for skewing the number in drug running and the threat they posed with large scale distribution and standover tactics and such maybe he would talk about various Bikie Gangs or even the various Mafia groups including Italian and Russia Mafia groups and Triads and Tongs.

As it is he seemed to identify the gangs most involved in gun violence and I think he picked it rather well. NONE of this makes ANY point about race......AT ALL.

He did not make ANY racist point NOT even subtlety. Someone DID though. That was YOU. Again. Why is that?

Al.  I was trying to find some sort of meaning in the post.  Otherwise if it is taken at face value it means that the action of criminals tends to skew the crime figures.  We should only include crimes done by non-criminals?  Yep.  That sure makes sense.

We have gangs.  Our gangs don't have unfettered access to guns.  Apart from that I think you'll find countries around the world are quite similar.

And also we tend to include crimes that are committed by criminals in crime statistics because we feel they may be an important part of, you know, factual fucking data.

Anything else we should leave out of things to make the numbers suit your argument?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 24, 2017, 06:09:59 AM
(And of course, it was just a coincidence that only minority groups were named.)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 24, 2017, 06:12:59 AM

I did not embarrass myself at all with that. If someone was foolish enough to try to extrapolate what I was not saying from what I was saying then not only is there no embarrassment nor need to counter a position I never made in the first place but they have only their own foolishness and any embarrassment THEY feel?

But I will not judge you unfairly just yet. I have no idea if this is what you are trying to do. (As unwise as it may be in inviting me out of just one thread that I have contained nastier disagreements with you). So please explain Odeon, nicely :)

No one extrapolated anything.   Your post is below.  Why don't you explain what your point was if we all got it so very wrong.  It's meaning looks clear to me.

To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

Britain has been a victim of bombings from at least IRA conflict. I remember there was a spate of them, including on a double decker bus, some years ago. I remember not long ago little kids were blown to bits in a popstar concert.

No this issue is not solved. There is not the same bombing instances or culture in UK.

We thankfully know that if we ban bombs and make them illegal there wont be any more bombings. That is what they shoyld do.

If they have done this, then we may have to reassess the notion that banning weapons that potentially causes death and/or controlling it will not prevebt bad people from doing bad things and ignoring illegaility.

Maybe preventative measures and better mental health services and such is better than banning weapons from decent people who would not abuse them and bad people who will any way?

Of course it may be reasonable to do a bit of  both but I wonder whether goung to "ban them ban them" as people have a wont to do, is the reasonable course of action

Bad people will do bad things and will not be put off by making something illegal.
So IF criminals and mentally ill people are NOT allowed to have access to weapons BUT get access to them anyhow despite the rules ALREADY in place. Then the gun control rules will likely make not the slightest bit of difference.
It will NEVER be the case that UK will be 100% protected from its citizens being bombed by a bad or crazy person AND likewise the US is not likely to ever be free from the danger that someone may do another mass shooting.

BUT if we accept all the above, UK has shown that it is prepared to look outside the box in a number of preventative measures and re-educating people as to possible dangers.

US should look at enforcing existing rules better so people do not get missed or fall through cracks and whatever and likewise better educational efforts about gun risks to gun owners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LE32Riyugg
LOL What a clown!
....and removing guns or preventing them from getting into the hands of the criminal and the mentally ill.
Will it stop it entirely? Nope. Will it make a real difference? Yup.


BIG question.....is it viable and practical? YES. (Hint: suggestions for gun control are not viable or practical because they cannot get passed in Congress and this is evidenced again and again. Democrats REALLY want them passed but they cannot get passed. So suggesting them as a viable and/or practical suggestion would be stupid).
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 24, 2017, 06:26:05 AM
So the amount of murders aren't that high if you don't count a lot of the murders.  That's almost on a par with Britain's bomb violence theory.

No, there aren't a lot of murders if you don't count gang members killing each other.  :facepalm2:

Could you please explain why they don't count?
 

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other gangs that we have.

They skew the results.

I know precisely what you mean but I want you to verbalise it.

Because Europe (which you are comparing us to) doesn't have the Mexican Mafia, MS13, Crips and Bloods and all the other people people with dark skin?

Is that what you meant?  It only counts as human/murder if it's white folk?  Is that the point you're dancing around?

He has not said anything of the sort. He was talking as far as I saw about institutionlised gang culture who make up a small portion of the overall population but are such a large portion of the overall homicide/gun violence problem. If he was talking about the gangs that were most violent in Prison culture, he may have mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood as well. If he was talking about gangs that were responsible for skewing the number in drug running and the threat they posed with large scale distribution and standover tactics and such maybe he would talk about various Bikie Gangs or even the various Mafia groups including Italian and Russia Mafia groups and Triads and Tongs.

As it is he seemed to identify the gangs most involved in gun violence and I think he picked it rather well. NONE of this makes ANY point about race......AT ALL.

He did not make ANY racist point NOT even subtlety. Someone DID though. That was YOU. Again. Why is that?

Al.  I was trying to find some sort of meaning in the post.  Otherwise if it is taken at face value it means that the action of criminals tends to skew the crime figures.  We should only include crimes done by non-criminals?  Yep.  That sure makes sense.

We have gangs.  Our gangs don't have unfettered access to guns.  Apart from that I think you'll find countries around the world are quite similar.

And also we tend to include crimes that are committed by criminals in crime statistics because we feel they may be an important part of, you know, factual fucking data.

Anything else we should leave out of things to make the numbers suit your argument?

Which argument of mine have I produce numbers that I am skewing and how? Are you that far removed from critical analysing that you forgot who was making that argument?
I am making the argument that as far as I saw the ONLY mention of race was from you. You alone. I further stated why including these gangs irrespective of the ethnic or racial composition of the gang members.
But you obviously think he is wrong and that these gangs collectively DO NOT contribute greatly to the homicide rate and that his reason for including these gangs is racial in nature. 
Perfect. Now show me the gangs that are predominantly racially white that contribute as much in gun violence and then Scrap will need to dismiss or correct his previous comments.

You can't can you? Why not? Is it because he was pretty right in what he said and that for whatever socio-economic and/or cultural reasons these gangs both remain mainly composed of certain non-white membership and proliferate and become institionalised to be violent and ready and willing to murder by gun? If so, then my question remains, as he said NOTHING about race and you did, why did you?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 24, 2017, 11:08:09 AM
To me it looks like you're saying that banning bombs didn't stop bombs going off therefore there is no point to gun control because it's a mental health issue. 

:LMAO: +
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 24, 2017, 12:00:54 PM
Al.  I was trying to find some sort of meaning in the post.  Otherwise if it is taken at face value it means that the action of criminals tends to skew the crime figures.  We should only include crimes done by non-criminals?  Yep.  That sure makes sense.

Are you really this stupid or are you being obtuse on purpose? Do you not understand the difference between individual criminals and ORGANIZED crime??

Quote
We have gangs.  Our gangs don't have unfettered access to guns.

You live on a fucking island with borders that are far easier to control. I've already made this argument and you've ignored it because you don't have an answer to it.   :hahaha:

Quote
Apart from that I think you'll find countries around the world are quite similar.

Actually, no. There are several countries with higher firearm homicide rates than the US.

Quote
And also we tend to include crimes that are committed by criminals in crime statistics because we feel they may be an important part of, you know, factual fucking data.

Anything else we should leave out of things to make the numbers suit your argument?

WOW!! this is a great example of how absolutely low resolution your thinking is.

All crime is the same to you, regardless of the root causes behind the crime because ultimately it's the guns that are responsible for the crime, right??   :hahaha:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on November 24, 2017, 12:03:55 PM
(And of course, it was just a coincidence that only minority groups were named.)

No, it wasn't a coincidence, they are responsible for the majority of gun violence in the US. There are white gangs, they're just not fighting over turf like minority gangs are.

You really are too ignorant and obtuse for this discussion, I've refuted every point you've made and yet you continue to flap your gums...
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 24, 2017, 04:13:31 PM
It's funny. You haven't actually refuted anything, only repeated claims shown to be false. You're really, really bad at this.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 27, 2017, 05:45:35 PM
If wit were shit, for you to speak that claim in ANY context, odious, you'd be the wisest man on this planet, or any other for that matter.

If you get any more full of yourself, you'd be in danger of ripping at the seams and spraying the surrounding area with faecal matter for the closest few hundred miles of so.  You aren't just a cretin, you are an embarrassment.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on November 28, 2017, 03:26:06 PM
Blah blubber blah blah...

This is why you need to stay off the drugs, kids.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 29, 2017, 04:17:40 AM
So are the gangs mentally ill?  Or are they the ones with bombs?

Was Stephen Paddock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) in the Crips or the Bloods? 
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 29, 2017, 06:02:22 AM
So are the gangs mentally ill?  Or are they the ones with bombs?

Was Stephen Paddock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock) in the Crips or the Bloods?

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

"During his last months, he reportedly smelled of alcohol from early morning,[31][45] and was despondent according to others.[31] Paddock was reported to have filled prescriptions for the anti-anxiety drug Valium (brand name of diazepam), in 2013,[30] 2016, as well as, the highest dose of 50 tablets 10-milligrams each in late June 2017.[46] The chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center said the effects of the drug can be magnified by alcohol,[46] as confirmed by Dr. Michael First, a clinical psychiatry professor at Columbia University.[46][47][48][49]"

Was he mentally ill or a criminal? Maybe he was both? At the very least, he seems to have been suffering mental illness? Why do you imagine that Stephen Paddock may have been in the Crips or the Bloods (and no, I never made any inference to him being so nor did ANYTHING I said give rise to that possibility)

Are gangs criminal or mentally ill? Criminal certainly and some members will certainly be mentally ill.

Have members of gangs ever used bombs? Sure have. Will in future too.

Addressing both criminals and people who are mentally ill will reduce the incidences of violent crime including gun violence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 29, 2017, 06:10:39 AM
....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on November 29, 2017, 06:33:25 AM
....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

You will, of course, quote where I made ANY mention that I believe that gang crime should not be part of gun crime statistics or gun crime debate, right? No? Wrong person? LOL

You have not obviously been reading much of what you are commenting on me with. If you had you would not have made this silly mistake nor would you be trying to draw me into defending lack of controls. I think that the biggest controlling factors that they can enforce are the ones on the books that they are not enforcing. In fact, some of the first arguments around this were that most of the gun control laws would make no difference and that too often the problem is not in the fact that the laws are bad but that they are not being enforced. There is always a glitch or an Administrative error or other regulatory non-compliance. So I believe in these controls. If you have points and checks in place and then don't use them, they are redundant.

I have also mentioned that there should be better policing of the criminal element and making sure they don't have nor can as easily get guns and furthermore that the mentally ill are not to have guns either on diagnosis or after.

No controls? I have no idea who you are trying to argue against but it clearly is not me with anything you have said. Any other strawmen you have laying around?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 29, 2017, 04:57:02 PM
....And you don't think the proliferation of guns caused by lack of controls has fuelled the increasing cycle of violent gang crime at all?  You think the subjects are so far divorced from each other that gang crime should not even be part of gun crime statistics, or part of the gun crime debate?

You will, of course, quote where I made ANY mention that I believe that gang crime should not be part of gun crime statistics or gun crime debate, right? No? Wrong person? LOL

You have not obviously been reading much of what you are commenting on me with. If you had you would not have made this silly mistake nor would you be trying to draw me into defending lack of controls. I think that the biggest controlling factors that they can enforce are the ones on the books that they are not enforcing. In fact, some of the first arguments around this were that most of the gun control laws would make no difference and that too often the problem is not in the fact that the laws are bad but that they are not being enforced. There is always a glitch or an Administrative error or other regulatory non-compliance. So I believe in these controls. If you have points and checks in place and then don't use them, they are redundant.

I have also mentioned that there should be better policing of the criminal element and making sure they don't have nor can as easily get guns and furthermore that the mentally ill are not to have guns either on diagnosis or after.

No controls? I have no idea who you are trying to argue against but it clearly is not me with anything you have said. Any other strawmen you have laying around?

I only tend to read the first two sentences of your posts because then I realise who posted it and save my time and energy.  It's not like your rambling posts add anything to the sum total of mankind's knowledge.

But along the way you have made the point that gun controls won't work and that mental health is a cause of gun crime, despite all knowledge, research and statistics proving otherwise.

I have asked you many times to post the research or proof or WHO or UN statistics that support your views, but what follows is you changing thew subject or just re-framing the argument.

So put up or shut the fuck up.

Prove that Mental Health is linked to gun violence.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 30, 2017, 01:48:50 AM
Here's another perspective: look at it the other way round, psychopaths might not necessarily be more likely to use guns to conduct mass killings than other tools for the task.

But, if you've just got so offended by the price of cinema popcorn that you shot up the audience with an uzi after watching the movie, chances are your a fucking nutter.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 30, 2017, 02:30:51 AM
Here's another perspective: look at it the other way round, psychopaths might not necessarily be more likely to use guns to conduct mass killings than other tools for the task.

But, if you've just got so offended by the price of cinema popcorn that you shot up the audience with an uzi after watching the movie, chances are your a fucking nutter.

We're on different sides of the fence on this debate, but this has got my vote for truth of the day.  I can't argue with this.

£4.80 for a large tub of salted is enough to tip anyone over the edge.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 30, 2017, 02:47:09 AM
You get a large tub for that?

True, even the small ones do tend to be big enough to stick your head if the movie is shit, but the contents are nevertheless severely overpriced for something that is, if you look at it sideways and ignore the price tag, suitable for filling a shipping crate for a priceless antique, cheap tacky ceramicware or anything in between thats one step up in stylish from a greasy ripped off hunk of last week's chinese language newspaper which looks like a foreigner of some oriental description already tried to combine sushi with fish and chips, having only heard rumor of the latter; before shipping the item.

And I'm not so much on an opposite side of the fence as I am perched on it looking lengthways.

Cinema food though, your right. they do need to be taken somewhere and drowned in warm flat pop that would make passable limescale scourer for a toilet. And sometimes tastes like it quite possibly, has.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on November 30, 2017, 02:54:00 AM
You've certainly put a new angle on the Batman movie spree shooting.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on November 30, 2017, 10:01:56 PM
Wait until its my turn, and I've strung the usher up from a ceiling fan with a noose braided from those candy ropes, with bits of broken glass embedded in them neck-side up for charging me, for ONE fucking BAG OF SWEETS and a paper cup of flat, sickly warm pepsi, which somebody may have already drunk, spat out, re-drunk, and pissed back out, what elsewhere I could buy a bloody  three course meal from a decent place to obtain some food.

If THAT was the reason for the batman movie spree shooting? I'm just pissed the perpetrator didn't save me a few clips, an automatic pistol and a movie ticket. (his idea he can pay for the food), I'd stay on cop-watch, at least if he agreed to target the staff only, not the moviegoers, who got wallet-raped just as badly, so I could have put a few third nostrils in a few piggy snouts. With an extra, larger fourth nostril directly in the back of their skull after the hollowpoints do their job of emptying their skulls of their resident faeces. Maybe slit a few joker-smiles in a few donut-scoffing faces with a rusty-bladed electric turkey-carving vibroblade. Slice and dice, twice as nice. And free pork crackling if only I bring a blowtorch with me too. Save on the cost of the movie chow. Long (and probably fat in that case) pig, mmmmm. Apparently people taste something like pork, according to the islanders of the carribean.

Omanoamnomnomnom :)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Os_Filhos_de_Pindorama._Cannibalism_in_Brazil_in_1557.jpg/800px-Os_Filhos_de_Pindorama._Cannibalism_in_Brazil_in_1557.jpg
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2017, 10:56:23 AM
If THAT was the reason for the batman movie spree shooting? I'm just pissed the perpetrator didn't save me a few clips, an automatic pistol and a movie ticket. (his idea he can pay for the food), I'd stay on cop-watch, at least if he agreed to target the staff only, not the moviegoers, who got wallet-raped just as badly, so I could have put a few third nostrils in a few piggy snouts.

Yeah, you're a perfectly balanced individual. Honestly, I'll celebrate when they finally put you behind bars.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 01, 2017, 10:58:44 AM
If THAT was the reason for the batman movie spree shooting? I'm just pissed the perpetrator didn't save me a few clips, an automatic pistol and a movie ticket. (his idea he can pay for the food), I'd stay on cop-watch, at least if he agreed to target the staff only, not the moviegoers, who got wallet-raped just as badly, so I could have put a few third nostrils in a few piggy snouts.

Yeah, you're a perfectly balanced individual. Honestly, I'll celebrate when they finally put you behind bars.

I like al our remaining members to stay. Even ones I do not care much for.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2017, 11:07:26 AM
If THAT was the reason for the batman movie spree shooting? I'm just pissed the perpetrator didn't save me a few clips, an automatic pistol and a movie ticket. (his idea he can pay for the food), I'd stay on cop-watch, at least if he agreed to target the staff only, not the moviegoers, who got wallet-raped just as badly, so I could have put a few third nostrils in a few piggy snouts.

Yeah, you're a perfectly balanced individual. Honestly, I'll celebrate when they finally put you behind bars.

I like al our remaining members to stay. Even ones I do not care much for.

You are such an admirable person.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 01, 2017, 01:04:36 PM
Why thank you.

Although, it ought to be pointed out that my comment was tongue in cheek.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on December 01, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
You are such an admirable person.

Yeah, Al has this thing called integrity, you might try it sometime.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 01, 2017, 04:09:42 PM
Finally put me behind bars? for gallows humor and ofttimes cynical humor, that is a little extreme, don't you think.

I cannot deny, that every time a filthy fucking swine dies screaming, the bastard's suffering is music to my ears. I am not about to pick up a strap and go on a slaughter however. But I sure as shit won't weep and call it a national tragedy when some porcine bigot with the intellect of the grease used to fry their morning donuts ends up with somebody using the contents of it's skull used to paint 'modern art' on a canvas ripped from the hides of their families. Fuckin' hate the cunts.

But I have very good reason to. The reason I am not behind bars, is that I am not engaged in the crime I have been accused repeatedly of.  Surely even you would agree that no man deserves to be subject to judicial punishment for the reason of an evidence-less accusation of a crime  not committed? That law and order requires on principle to be based upon fact, evidence and due process rather than opinion, selfinterest on the part of LE, or vendettas?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 01, 2017, 04:48:57 PM
I'm counting on fact, evidence and due process, actually. I'm guessing it won't take long.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on December 01, 2017, 05:20:19 PM
Finally put me behind bars? for gallows humor and ofttimes cynical humor, that is a little extreme, don't you think.

I cannot deny, that every time a filthy fucking swine dies screaming, the bastard's suffering is music to my ears. I am not about to pick up a strap and go on a slaughter however. But I sure as shit won't weep and call it a national tragedy when some porcine bigot with the intellect of the grease used to fry their morning donuts ends up with somebody using the contents of it's skull used to paint 'modern art' on a canvas ripped from the hides of their families. Fuckin' hate the cunts.

But I have very good reason to. The reason I am not behind bars, is that I am not engaged in the crime I have been accused repeatedly of.  Surely even you would agree that no man deserves to be subject to judicial punishment for the reason of an evidence-less accusation of a crime  not committed? That law and order requires on principle to be based upon fact, evidence and due process rather than opinion, selfinterest on the part of LE, or vendettas?

Fuck that! I would miss your inventive, clever, spanky dirty-mouth rants.

Of which, You are over due in delivering the next, I should mention.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 01, 2017, 07:05:32 PM
Well you'll need to wait for a reason of course. Anyone going to, needs some cause to snark about.

But, I learned from some of the grand-masters (mistresses, actually), so, be patient, it'll be there. But there isn't exactly a schedule. You don't need to drop a turd straight after you eat, and cannae' time its exit.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on December 01, 2017, 07:08:39 PM
Well you'll need to wait for a reason of course. Anyone going to, needs some cause to snark about.

But, I learned from some of the grand-masters (mistresses, actually), so, be patient, it'll be there. But there isn't exactly a schedule. You don't need to drop a turd straight after you eat, and cannae' time its exit.

So, you are saying that something or someone should inspire.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 01, 2017, 08:52:51 PM
It will. It will. What I mean is that there is no sport in firing blank rounds into a targetless space, if that makes sense. Or in beating a dead horse. No sense in my wasting a perfectly good  snark when there's bugger all reason. Better to let it tick over until that moment of inspiration and there's a prime, juicy target just begging for a roasting :D

And no amusement in targeting the defenseless. You don't see martial arts students picking a fight with a lamprey, or an encrustation of seaweed, or waste a cruise missile on somebody that just farted do you now? and whats the point in taking on a target with the defensive capacity of a sea-squirt? sure, sometime a reply is due on principle because...well because they have the audacity to breathe air that may contain atoms which may, at some point have occupied the atmosphere above my toilet. Some things that walk on two legs are still to be classified as vermin, and what does one do with vermin, if not leave them a tidbit of poison? :autism: Metaphorically speaking. Usually, at any rate. More or less the same principle as when somebody coughs up phlegm and hawks it onto the pavement.

Sometimes there are more suitable places than the pavement, but it isn't worth seeking out a special resting place for a loogie unless some or other incarnate gonad happens to be within gobbing range and have an ugly face that they turn your way.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on December 02, 2017, 06:40:19 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNn8JljyCSE
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 02, 2017, 06:57:57 AM
Why did you post that?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 02, 2017, 04:05:00 PM
You are such an admirable person.

Yeah, Al has this thing called integrity, you might try it sometime.

You want to remove your sig or shall I? It's against our TOS.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 02, 2017, 05:37:22 PM
You are such an admirable person.

Yeah, Al has this thing called integrity, you might try it sometime.

You want to remove your sig or shall I? It's against our TOS.
How's that? Or did it already change?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 03, 2017, 04:53:25 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?  Is it "mental health" or "mexicans"?  I can't remember where we got to.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on December 03, 2017, 05:19:56 AM
Why did you post that?


Connections. And alcohol.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 03, 2017, 05:38:34 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?  Is it "mental health" or "mexicans"?  I can't remember where we got to.

When did I ever say Mexicans?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on December 03, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?

This week I blame impending doom of Christmas.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 03, 2017, 02:02:24 PM
Why did you post that?


Connections. And alcohol.

Connections was one of my favourite 70s/80s TV shows.  Was it just shown in the UK?  It was like Carl Sagan's Cosmos, except it was interesting.  And alcohol is my favourite choice of drink.  What are the odds of that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1ZLwb1jLw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1ZLwb1jLw)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 03, 2017, 02:17:01 PM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?

This week I blame impending doom of Christmas.  :zoinks:

I cannot find a breakdown of gun murder rates by public holiday.  What are they trying to hide from us?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on December 03, 2017, 02:59:22 PM


Connections was one of my favourite 70s/80s TV shows.  Was it just shown in the UK?  It was like Carl Sagan's Cosmos, except it was interesting.  And alcohol is my favourite choice of drink.  What are the odds of that?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1ZLwb1jLw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re1ZLwb1jLw)


'Twas available in the US. Both the show and alcohol.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 03, 2017, 04:11:51 PM

'Twas available in the US. Both the show and alcohol.

If you didn't have alcohol it would explain a lot of the small arms fire.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on December 03, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?

This week I blame impending doom of Christmas.  :zoinks:

I cannot find a breakdown of gun murder rates by public holiday.  What are they trying to hide from us?

Statistics will never help you to understand the American social pressures of consumerism.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on December 03, 2017, 06:05:32 PM

'Twas available in the US. Both the show and alcohol.

If you didn't have alcohol it would explain a lot of the small arms fire.


We can have both.  :police:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 04, 2017, 08:03:49 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?

This week I blame impending doom of Christmas.  :zoinks:

I cannot find a breakdown of gun murder rates by public holiday.  What are they trying to hide from us?

Statistics will never help you to understand the American social pressures of consumerism.  :zoinks:

I don't think the new NRA backed Macy's campaign, "Get her a gun for Christmas" is going to help matters.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on December 04, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
You are such an admirable person.

Yeah, Al has this thing called integrity, you might try it sometime.

You want to remove your sig or shall I? It's against our TOS.

Now you're just making shit up.

You have recently shown a pattern of fucking with my account for your own reasons.

No one believes your shit anymore.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2017, 12:40:10 AM
And you replaced it with something about me. Well done to piss me off, idiot. Consider yourself sinbinned.

And here's a hint: the kind of bullying that is your thing is against our TOS, just as it is against the TOS of your service provider. So no, you don't get to keep on doing it here.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 05, 2017, 12:41:29 AM
Oh, and if you doubt me, talk to your ISP. I can do it if you like but then you'll have to get a new one.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on December 05, 2017, 01:23:31 AM
Yeah. This place has gone completely to shit.  :trollskull:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 05, 2017, 04:15:20 AM
What did you expect with a baby in charge?

If I didn't know it was an old one, I'd guess  you changed your avatar to better resemble the management. Well, on a good day at least.

Want to try for a bad day?

I can't make my mind up...

http://2il.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sea-creatures.jpg

Or..wait, no, I got it:

'no punters make me a saaaaaadddd panda'

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZdnIslPmutSOe3nlqJrgYoDCZVFJ-Wlkv-jdJQwIp46Ln9wuQlA

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: DirtDawg on December 05, 2017, 08:23:04 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?  Is it "mental health" or "mexicans"?  I can't remember where we got to.

When did I ever say Mexicans?

I think that post was meant as a generalized random jab at some of us USA gun owners.

I grew up in a predominately Mexican culture in South Texas. Almost all my friends were of some form of Spanish, Portuguese, Indian (native American, but they HATE that reference) or mestizo decent.

While the phrase SFM was very commonly used (Stupid Fucking Mexican) the people I knew were just as smart as we whites were.
Now to be quite honest, many of my friends fathers did not have the advantage of my own father's fancy 8th grade education, so they often seemed a bit "stupid".
In reality they were eager to learn new things and found better work from associating with these really smart cowboys like my dad, with his fancy 8th grade education.

I have problem with these assholes who think that third world country people can not contribute to a modern and "sophisticated" (in our tunnel visioned view) society.  Someone just needs to give them a chance to succeed and many will surprise us all.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on December 05, 2017, 09:05:04 AM
I suppose it depends on who and where. Some places do seem rather to have gone to hell in a handbasket. (syria, somalia etc.) Where until some pretty filthy stains are cleansed it isn't going to get much better.

(not that in the case of syria at least there is much left anymore TO get better. Not unless your an autie that has a speshul interest in collecting artillery shell-casings, landminds and the odd dump full of mustard gas) (count me out. If I wanted that sort of thing I'd not be borrowing any from some jihadi chumps who probably make shitty mustard agents. Not that its particularly difficult, I've never tried to sit down and work out how long it would take me, but lets just say a couple of hardware stores and a pet shop and I'd already have it if I wanted any. )
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 06, 2017, 03:50:17 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?  Is it "mental health" or "mexicans"?  I can't remember where we got to.

When did I ever say Mexicans?

I think that post was meant as a generalized random jab at some of us USA gun owners.

I grew up in a predominately Mexican culture in South Texas. Almost all my friends were of some form of Spanish, Portuguese, Indian (native American, but they HATE that reference) or mestizo decent.

While the phrase SFM was very commonly used (Stupid Fucking Mexican) the people I knew were just as smart as we whites were.
Now to be quite honest, many of my friends fathers did not have the advantage of my own father's fancy 8th grade education, so they often seemed a bit "stupid".
In reality they were eager to learn new things and found better work from associating with these really smart cowboys like my dad, with his fancy 8th grade education.

I have problem with these assholes who think that third world country people can not contribute to a modern and "sophisticated" (in our tunnel visioned view) society.  Someone just needs to give them a chance to succeed and many will surprise us all.

There's been a few mentions of Mexicans on this thread so not a random reference.

Anyway...

Once again I ask...  Can any of the gun lobby supporters provide any verifiable research that sho0ws either than gun controls will not work in reducing gun violence, or any statistical proof that mental health is linked to gun crime, violent crime, or any fucking crime at all.

Or you can change the subject and get more insulting.  I bet most will go option b.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 06, 2017, 05:19:49 AM
So what's the cause of gun violence this week?  Is it "mental health" or "mexicans"?  I can't remember where we got to.

When did I ever say Mexicans?

I think that post was meant as a generalized random jab at some of us USA gun owners.

I grew up in a predominately Mexican culture in South Texas. Almost all my friends were of some form of Spanish, Portuguese, Indian (native American, but they HATE that reference) or mestizo decent.

While the phrase SFM was very commonly used (Stupid Fucking Mexican) the people I knew were just as smart as we whites were.
Now to be quite honest, many of my friends fathers did not have the advantage of my own father's fancy 8th grade education, so they often seemed a bit "stupid".
In reality they were eager to learn new things and found better work from associating with these really smart cowboys like my dad, with his fancy 8th grade education.

I have problem with these assholes who think that third world country people can not contribute to a modern and "sophisticated" (in our tunnel visioned view) society.  Someone just needs to give them a chance to succeed and many will surprise us all.

There's been a few mentions of Mexicans on this thread so not a random reference.

Anyway...

Once again I ask...  Can any of the gun lobby supporters provide any verifiable research that sho0ws either than gun controls will not work in reducing gun violence, or any statistical proof that mental health is linked to gun crime, violent crime, or any fucking crime at all.

Or you can change the subject and get more insulting.  I bet most will go option b.

Cool list every incident of ANYONE going postal and I will show you a mentally ill person. Why? Because it is mentally abnornal behaviour. Same as suicides. Mentally healthy people generally do not do it.

Many of the homicides are from Sociopaths and Psychopaths.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 06, 2017, 10:09:01 AM
By your definition, then?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 06, 2017, 01:23:13 PM

Cool list every incident of ANYONE going postal and I will show you a mentally ill person. Why? Because it is mentally abnornal behaviour. Same as suicides. Mentally healthy people generally do not do it.

Many of the homicides are from Sociopaths and Psychopaths.

That is the second worst logic I have ever witnessed you use.

Of course from the view point of the majority ALL abhorrent behaviour is mentally abnormal.  Murder.  Suicide.  Shoplifting.  Smoking.  None of it makes sense so it must be mad people.

The point you miss is that mentally unhealthy people mostly start out as mentally healthy people.  Just like most illegally sold guns start out as legally sold guns.  To not legislate that flow of firearms is the most mentally unhealthy thing about this subject.

Once again.  Gun control does not equal gun ban. 

But please, if you have any studies or statistics that show gun control will be bad or that mental health is linked to crime in any way whatsoever then please post it up here so we can all see it.  I'm still waiting. All you do is re-post the same unfounded shit.

Evidence please.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 07, 2017, 02:04:50 PM

Cool list every incident of ANYONE going postal and I will show you a mentally ill person. Why? Because it is mentally abnornal behaviour. Same as suicides. Mentally healthy people generally do not do it.

Many of the homicides are from Sociopaths and Psychopaths.

That is the second worst logic I have ever witnessed you use.

Of course from the view point of the majority ALL abhorrent behaviour is mentally abnormal.  Murder.  Suicide.  Shoplifting.  Smoking.  None of it makes sense so it must be mad people.

The point you miss is that mentally unhealthy people mostly start out as mentally healthy people.  Just like most illegally sold guns start out as legally sold guns.  To not legislate that flow of firearms is the most mentally unhealthy thing about this subject.

Once again.  Gun control does not equal gun ban. 

But please, if you have any studies or statistics that show gun control will be bad or that mental health is linked to crime in any way whatsoever then please post it up here so we can all see it.  I'm still waiting. All you do is re-post the same unfounded shit.

Evidence please.

I have not questioned the fact that mentally unwell people usually start of mentally well. That does in no way address my point.

Are mass shooters mentally well or mentally unwell? Easy question. Are people that use guns to suicide mentally well or mentally unwell? As I say regardless of how they became mentally unwell or when, and regardless of how difficult you believe it is to enforce this, you said there is no statistical link, I would have you list names of such people and I will call each of these people as suffering from Psychological illness/being mentally unwell and you can dispute these all you like. We can apply these to your efforts to pretend there is no link and wrap this ridiculous conversation up.

If your argument is shifting to "but you will not be able to enforce it" that is an entirely different point to the one at hand
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 08, 2017, 12:51:21 AM
You're still not presenting any evidence, only opinions.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 08, 2017, 01:42:03 AM

I have not questioned the fact that mentally unwell people usually start of mentally well. That does in no way address my point.

Are mass shooters mentally well or mentally unwell? Easy question. Are people that use guns to suicide mentally well or mentally unwell? As I say regardless of how they became mentally unwell or when, and regardless of how difficult you believe it is to enforce this, you said there is no statistical link, I would have you list names of such people and I will call each of these people as suffering from Psychological illness/being mentally unwell and you can dispute these all you like. We can apply these to your efforts to pretend there is no link and wrap this ridiculous conversation up.

If your argument is shifting to "but you will not be able to enforce it" that is an entirely different point to the one at hand

All that is standing between you and a Nobel prize is your reluctance to post any kind of provable statistic.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 08, 2017, 07:12:38 AM
Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 08, 2017, 08:14:31 AM
Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 08, 2017, 01:52:50 PM
Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

Are you resorting to insults again because you have ran out of argument?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 08, 2017, 03:19:03 PM
Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

You should try it some time.

The thinking. Not the being cute. You're already cute.  :grouphug:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 12, 2017, 03:10:40 AM
Regulating guns is too hard.

Instead we should regulate people's state of mind.

Yeah, that sounds much easier.

Are you trying to think? It's cute.

Are you resorting to insults again because you have ran out of argument?

No, I do that on my time off when I am having a break.

There are a couple of very stupid positions and I am amazed and amused at seeing the lengths to which people will continue to push them

"We think the way to fix X is with Y"
"Okay but you have tried Y and it does not work because of Z"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"Okay but they have been trying to fix X with Y for years and it does not work because of Z"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"OKay but as I said because of Z it is not and will not work so maybe consider A and B"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"
"OKay but you have been saying that for years and for decades Y has not worked and it will not work for decades to come because of Z. Wanting it to be different is stupid and trying the same failed path is stupid. Why not try A and B?"
"But we think the way to fix X is with Y"

"You think existing laws surrounding the purchase and use of guns by mentally ill and criminals should be enforced? That is crazy-speak. We all know that no connection between gun violence and these people exist. MOst people shooting people are neither criminals nor psychologically disordered."

"Sure? So most gun violence is between law-abiding and same people who just happen to kill someone? That theory sounds very special"
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 12, 2017, 01:25:10 PM
Is there an argument somewhere in there? I can't be bothered to wade through X and Y.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 12, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 13, 2017, 01:17:53 AM
It doesn't help his argument to add an abstraction.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 13, 2017, 02:41:27 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 13, 2017, 02:50:37 PM
I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 13, 2017, 06:00:14 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 14, 2017, 12:49:13 AM
I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

I think that last one is "W".
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 14, 2017, 12:55:45 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.


There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 14, 2017, 01:03:09 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Good points. So does this lead us to conclude that the argument that gun control in the US is impossible is bollocks? And that the argument that gun control won't prevent violent crime is also bollocks?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 14, 2017, 01:12:25 AM
I would hesitate to attribute the 90s drop solely to the Brady Act. I'm not saying it didn't help--fairly sure it did--but if you look at the statistics, there seems to be more to it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 14, 2017, 04:31:23 AM
I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

Can't follow a conversation can you Four Ace? Shame.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 14, 2017, 04:42:41 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 14, 2017, 06:22:59 AM
I think "Z" is supposed to be banning the mentally ill.  Or bombs.  Or mentally ill bombs.

Can't follow a conversation can you Four Ace? Shame.

I follow you perfectly.  It's your logic that doesn't follow.

The argument went:

Al:  I say Z is true.
4AD:  got any proof
Al: I SAID Z
4AD:  Got any proof?
Al:  YOU ARE A MORON.

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 14, 2017, 06:23:54 AM
Or did I miss the part of this thread where Al won himself a Doctorate by posting up this thesis on the causal link between gun violence and mental health?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 14, 2017, 07:37:30 AM
Or did I miss the part of this thread where Al won himself a Doctorate by posting up this thesis on the causal link between gun violence and mental health?

Here is an interesting theory.

 Al posts on a forum and someone wants Al to post a thesis on something he wrote. He doesn't and this reflects badly on Al.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 14, 2017, 11:49:37 AM
He's right. You still haven't proved anything. I do admire the X and Y move, though. Muddying the waters sometimes works when you don't have anything.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 14, 2017, 01:01:00 PM
Or did I miss the part of this thread where Al won himself a Doctorate by posting up this thesis on the causal link between gun violence and mental health?

Here is an interesting theory.

 Al posts on a forum and someone wants Al to post a thesis on something he wrote. He doesn't and this reflects badly on Al.

Everyone from the WHO down has done studies on mental health and violence and mental health and crime and there has never been any statistical link.  It is you who say otherwise.  I'd just like you to share your reading list on this matter. 

You are so emphatic that you are correct, I'm giving you the chance to prove it to others.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 14, 2017, 03:41:41 PM
He's right. You still haven't proved anything. I do admire the X and Y move, though. Muddying the waters sometimes works when you don't have anything.

It was not muddying the waters though and saying I do not have anything is untrue. (and yes what I have posted refutes this whether a couple of members here insist on not entertaining it or not, does not mean that I have nothing nor that my reasoning is not perfectly valid - huge difference between that and having nothing and it would be untrue to infer they were the same).
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 14, 2017, 03:50:27 PM
He's right. You still haven't proved anything. I do admire the X and Y move, though. Muddying the waters sometimes works when you don't have anything.

It was not muddying the waters though and saying I do not have anything is untrue. (and yes what I have posted refutes this whether a couple of members here insist on not entertaining it or not, does not mean that I have nothing nor that my reasoning is not perfectly valid - huge difference between that and having nothing and it would be untrue to infer they were the same).

I'm not saying you have nothing.  I'm just asking you to show me what you do have.  What's your issue with that?

Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 14, 2017, 05:51:41 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.


There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.
Don't view the dip in the mid 80's as meaningful; it's sort of like the dip in the mid 70's, in the sense that it's simply a dip within an overall upward trend. Sort of like when violent crime rates occasionally bump up now; the long-term trend is still a downward trend. The slight decrease between the 1990 peak and 1993 seems insignificant for an argument that something else was trending prior to the Brady Act.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 14, 2017, 06:08:00 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.
Not sure anyone has suggested taking anyone's property. There's several things the US could do to better gun control. Better enforcement of the existing laws is a good one. There's also requiring licensing, safety courses, hands-on and written testing to obtain licensing. Requiring the registration of firearms, and closing the backdoor in background checks via private sales. These are things the public supports.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 14, 2017, 06:09:09 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Good points. So does this lead us to conclude that the argument that gun control in the US is impossible is bollocks? And that the argument that gun control won't prevent violent crime is also bollocks?
Indeed. Jack makes excellent points. Bollocks? Difficult to say. Non-gun related violent crime has seen the same decline since the early 90's, and gun control can't really explain that. Which excellent point is better?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 14, 2017, 11:05:07 PM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Good points. So does this lead us to conclude that the argument that gun control in the US is impossible is bollocks? And that the argument that gun control won't prevent violent crime is also bollocks?
Indeed. Jack makes excellent points. Bollocks? Difficult to say. Non-gun related violent crime has seen the same decline since the early 90's, and gun control can't really explain that. Which excellent point is better?

Can't I just assign peak excellentness to all of your points?

To be honest, any relief from the usual circular and unsubstantiated arguments against gun control gets a thumbs up.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 14, 2017, 11:14:58 PM
Can't I just assign peak excellentness to all of your points?
Absolutely. :M:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 15, 2017, 12:52:26 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.


There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.
Don't view the dip in the mid 80's as meaningful; it's sort of like the dip in the mid 70's, in the sense that it's simply a dip within an overall upward trend. Sort of like when violent crime rates occasionally bump up now; the long-term trend is still a downward trend. The slight decrease between the 1990 peak and 1993 seems insignificant for an argument that something else was trending prior to the Brady Act.

Not sure I'd interpret the curve the way you do, but there is no way to know.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 15, 2017, 05:49:21 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.
Not sure anyone has suggested taking anyone's property. There's several things the US could do to better gun control. Better enforcement of the existing laws is a good one. There's also requiring licensing, safety courses, hands-on and written testing to obtain licensing. Requiring the registration of firearms, and closing the backdoor in background checks via private sales. These are things the public supports.

I think that enforcing existing laws which I have mentioned again and again here is absolutely important.

The registration of Firearms unfortunately runs into a BIG problem. IF we can believe that the Constitution's amendment makes a case for the abstract concept of a possible Tyrannical Government needing to be defended against, then we have to think that 1) IF you want to tax all taxable citizens, you need to know who is earning taxable income and have databases of this, 2) IF you need to know who to target to put in religious/ethnic/racial internment camps, you need to have a database of who those peopel are before you round them up 3) IF you are a Tyranical Government and you wish disarm citizens from their lawful and Constitutional right to bear arms to protect themselves fom you......what do you need?

Safety Courses ARE offered by the NRA. But much like the services that are offered by Planned Parenting do NOT ONLY comprise of Abortion, these safety courses do not get as much publicity with the NRA as the thing the NRA is best known for which is gun Activism and promotion.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 16, 2017, 03:08:52 AM
Yes, it's better not to do anything so the tyrannical government with tanks, fighter jets and nukes won't know who's got guns.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 16, 2017, 11:11:43 AM
Yes, we all know that in history the Soviets trucks tanks and 500 000 men charged into Finland and your descendants (no doubt) stalemated them by thrusting logs into Tank tracks and using the climate and knowledge of the terrain and better camouflage to turn their strengths into weaknesses. The fact that Finland had only a few million people to combat against Russia was negligible. (Even without Simo Hayha)

So you are not even for a moment suggesting the fact that US Government having nukes and tanks and such is tantamount to "game over, hand over your guns because you could not even stand a chance to adequately defend yourself against a more technologically superior force", or are you?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 17, 2017, 01:55:42 AM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 17, 2017, 04:25:52 AM
Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 17, 2017, 05:23:56 AM
Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?

You know those painting you see in caves of stick figures bringing down Mammoths? That was Odeon and his mates catching dinner.

Yes, I did mean ancestors. Great pick up.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 17, 2017, 05:32:12 AM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 17, 2017, 02:24:53 PM
You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 17, 2017, 02:27:06 PM
You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 18, 2017, 12:11:59 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.


There was a significant dip in the mid-80s, too, and the rate had started dropping again before the Brady Act.
Don't view the dip in the mid 80's as meaningful; it's sort of like the dip in the mid 70's, in the sense that it's simply a dip within an overall upward trend. Sort of like when violent crime rates occasionally bump up now; the long-term trend is still a downward trend. The slight decrease between the 1990 peak and 1993 seems insignificant for an argument that something else was trending prior to the Brady Act.

Not sure I'd interpret the curve the way you do, but there is no way to know.
My baby boomer theory is my best and most thoughtful interpretation, as it doesn't simply rely on stats. Something has shifted in society, and while guns and laws are related to that, it seems more likely people are most influential factor.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on December 18, 2017, 12:37:20 AM
He seems to be saying people keep suggesting Y, but can't recall seeing anyone suggest Y. It seems nothing at all been suggested, and Y is simply assumed. Of course that's me assuming Y is outright banning guns in the US.

Y would be restricting measures on guns (gun control). It gets instant push back and is bought up again and again with the same result. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.
In 1993 the Brady Act was adopted for handguns and extended to long guns in 1997. While this act may not be completely effective, statistics show background checks to have been effective by preventing the legal sale of firearms to convicted criminals, people with warrants, people with known substance abuse issues, perpetrators of domestic violence, and illegal aliens. Since 1993 US homicide rates and gun related crime rates have dropped over 50%. One might argue, the US already has gun control and it's effective because the facts show it's working, so better gun control isn't an insane suggestion.

Yes and No.

These 1990's Acts (no doubt there was some pushback on both) were at least viable to those with a "from my cold dead hands" view of any gun control on the basis that it did not affect them. "They were not taking their guns away from decent honest law abiding folks who were not at risk", they were taking it from the people they were at most risk from. The people THEY did not want in possession of guns.

Saying that you will stop mentally ill people or criminals from obtaining guns as a measure of gun control is a much easier sell than "Hey there friend, I know you are a decent person who loves their gun collection and considers it your constitutional right to bear those arms but in case YOU turn into a Psycho or a criminal, I am taking that big one off you there and that one over there too. It is for your own good." That sounds to some Americans as the government trying to disarm or reduce their rights.

It is like the gay marriage thing in Australia. Most of us are ambivalent about gay people getting married because it simply does not affect us. A gay person getting married does not hurt me or anyone else, so why would I care? It is completely reasonable for me to agree to this. However, if that means that for instance, the Church going crowd in Australia HAS to include gay friendly services and change the way they practice their religious doctrine to be more gay friendly, I would strongly object.
Not sure anyone has suggested taking anyone's property. There's several things the US could do to better gun control. Better enforcement of the existing laws is a good one. There's also requiring licensing, safety courses, hands-on and written testing to obtain licensing. Requiring the registration of firearms, and closing the backdoor in background checks via private sales. These are things the public supports.

I think that enforcing existing laws which I have mentioned again and again here is absolutely important.

The registration of Firearms unfortunately runs into a BIG problem. IF we can believe that the Constitution's amendment makes a case for the abstract concept of a possible Tyrannical Government needing to be defended against, then we have to think that 1) IF you want to tax all taxable citizens, you need to know who is earning taxable income and have databases of this, 2) IF you need to know who to target to put in religious/ethnic/racial internment camps, you need to have a database of who those peopel are before you round them up 3) IF you are a Tyranical Government and you wish disarm citizens from their lawful and Constitutional right to bear arms to protect themselves fom you......what do you need?

Safety Courses ARE offered by the NRA. But much like the services that are offered by Planned Parenting do NOT ONLY comprise of Abortion, these safety courses do not get as much publicity with the NRA as the thing the NRA is best known for which is gun Activism and promotion.
Nothing suggested conflicts with the constitution in any way, because the difference is owner vs operator. A good comparison is cars. For a car to be legally operational, it must be registered. For a person to legally operate a car, they are required to take a safety course, and pass a hands on and written exam. This has no relationship to who can legally own a car.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 18, 2017, 12:40:45 AM
Odeon, your descendants fought off the Russian invasion of Finland?

Just how fucking old ARE you?

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 18, 2017, 12:47:18 AM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 18, 2017, 12:51:08 AM
My baby boomer theory is my best and most thoughtful interpretation, as it doesn't simply rely on stats. Something has shifted in society, and while guns and laws are related to that, it seems more likely people are most influential factor.

It's a perfectly valid interpretation, but unprovable.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 18, 2017, 01:17:29 AM
You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on December 18, 2017, 01:47:30 AM
You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.

You obviously mistook the hard evidence for a circular pile of waffle. I've been known to make the same mistake myself at times.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 18, 2017, 02:49:48 AM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 18, 2017, 07:21:22 AM
You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.

You obviously mistook the hard evidence for a circular pile of waffle. I've been known to make the same mistake myself at times.

Al seems to think he posted up something to back up his claim.  I guess we both missed it.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 18, 2017, 07:45:06 AM
I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 18, 2017, 11:53:39 PM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.

There used to be tribes in the Pacific that ate people. It was a cultural thing but they managed to change.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 19, 2017, 12:09:30 AM
I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.

There used to be tribes in the Pacific that ate people. It was a cultural thing but they managed to change.

Yes, Sweden could change its flag, rewrite its history and renounce its laws. But it probably would not be a good idea to.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 19, 2017, 12:46:48 AM
So...

Guns are a cultural thing.
Guns are a constitutional thing.
There's the threat of the tyrannical government.
Plus, it may be a decent trade-off.
And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway.

This about right?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 19, 2017, 02:52:56 AM
So...

Guns are a cultural thing.
Guns are a constitutional thing.
There's the threat of the tyrannical government.
Plus, it may be a decent trade-off.
And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway.

This about right?

One by one?

Are guns a cultural thing? Guns in general? Guns in the US generally? Guns in many parts of the US? It would be the latter.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/06/exp-van-jones-special-cnntv.cnn
These guys, for example, Need high powered rifles for hunting which they admitted they use when food is scarce. It is an important staple of their life. No doubt part of their culture from when they were little and when their grandparents were little.

Guns are a constitutional thing. Yup 2nd Amendment is held in high regard in US. Sweden does not have a 2nd amendment in the Constitution and neither does Australia. So how important is it to us? Not a lot. Why would it be? The first Amendment before it concerns Freedom of Speech. These protected Constitutional Amendments are enshrined in the Constitution that underpins America.

There's the threat of the tyrannical government. Is there? Could there be? Damned if I know. Certainly, I see no reason to think it likely but then there is a Hell of a lot of sunlight between unlikely and impossible, and I am not going to try to breach that. The people who wrote that Amendment believed the safeguards warranted and a lot of Americans and constitutional scholars and other learned people do think those safeguards are good.

Plus, it may be a decent trade-off. Depends not what I mean but how you see it? The people in the clip above, having guns means in down times they can both put food on the table and direct some of their income to other necessaries like I dunno medicine. So a trade-off may be less access to hunting rifles may mean a trade-off to not eating in down times BUT may mean the chances of hunting accidents, children getting hold of guns, undesirable getting hold of their guns for unlawful use or other such admirable protections. Either one could be traded off. Sacrifice one and Empower the other. Trade-off. Now expand such individual trade-offs to 300 million people all with different needs wants and experiences.

And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway. I have not said that. I have not intimated that and I have not given rise for ANY thinking person to figure this to be the case. So I have no idea why you are asking and no I will not humour anyone here to pretend their ignorance to my belief of this.

Is that at all clearer?
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: FourAceDeal on December 19, 2017, 08:28:33 AM
I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0

In the interest of fairness, I'm not going to critique it for a couple of days.  I'll give you a chance to change it for something better, because taking this down is going to be no challenge at all.  A five year old with google could have done better.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 19, 2017, 12:58:00 PM
Can't be bothered with any of it, to be honest. This is going in circles.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Al Swearegen on December 20, 2017, 03:32:38 AM
I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0

In the interest of fairness, I'm not going to critique it for a couple of days.  I'll give you a chance to change it for something better, because taking this down is going to be no challenge at all.  A five year old with google could have done better.

It took me about two minutes.

Mother Jones is a trash Progressive site worse than Buzzfeed or HuffPost.

To be completely honest I did not expect any articles to come up. Now, why would that be? Because unpopular or unacceptable or confronting points of view are squashed. Find a Progressive-friendly position and you will find buckets of articles and websites on that Position. Try the exercise with a non-Progressive position....you will struggle.

The only reason I went to Mother Jones of all places is because in their efforts to drum up some narrative (did I read the article? No I didn't) they went into areas unfamiliar to Progressive narratives and being Mother Jones and the Feminist capital they have, they were not buried. So I said "Yup, where is the survey?". A few clicks and I found the spreadsheet.

The thing is that if your whole argument is an "argumentum ad populum" then cool run with that but it does not impress me.

The Earth is flat point out the number of people that believed a thousand years ago? A lot? Was there any truth in it? Were there any dissenters? Were their opinions respected? What happened to their opinions? Do you believe more people believe x = X is the best opinon?



If Twitter is run by Jack Dorsey an avid Progressive and Black Lives matter supporter and he has people like Anita Sarkessian in charge of policing their content.
Reddit is run by Steve Huffman, a Hillary fan and admitted Progressive.
Facebook is run by Hillary and Merkel fan - Silicon Democrat Mark Zuckerburg who threatened to run on Democrat ticket for President in 2020.
Google and Youtube? Same story.

The individual efforts to curate their websites and promote pro-Progressive views and ban or censor views that are not aligning with their own not only supresses information but it makes a one size fits all approach to looking at the world.

Though there may be a concerted collusion between them,  I think it more likely they are simply following the path that leads them to similar results.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on December 20, 2017, 12:35:06 PM
Honestly, I have literally no idea what you're on about.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: renaeden on February 15, 2018, 03:39:00 AM
Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on February 15, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
I hate these things. They spoil all the interesting news.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Icequeen on February 15, 2018, 11:25:33 AM
Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.


Read some of his posts and saw the Instagram account :zombiefuck:...and there are kids saying they always thought he was a risk for doing something like this.

WTH.

 
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Yuri Bezmenov on February 15, 2018, 02:10:11 PM
Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.


Read some of his posts and saw the Instagram account :zombiefuck:...and there are kids saying they always thought he was a risk for doing something like this.

WTH.

He had actually been on the radar screen of both local law enforcement and the FBI.

The red flags were there but the necessary protocols to take action weren't in place.

People who knew the guy thought he was capable of doing something like this.

He was able to slip through the cracks somehow.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on February 16, 2018, 02:39:29 AM
Honestly, I can't be arsed to comment on this, but *cough* stricter gun laws *cough*.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on February 16, 2018, 05:21:42 PM
Honestly, I can't be arsed to comment on this, but *cough* stricter gun laws *cough*.
That's why Obama wa elected.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Arya Quinn on February 16, 2018, 07:13:03 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I think that any kind of change in the gun laws is impossible (that is in terms of making access stricter).
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: mdagli1 on February 17, 2018, 01:46:31 AM

Murderers are heroes. Whether you kill vegetables for food or butcher kiddies during a deranged state of mind, it doesn't really matter. You survived, they didn't and in the end, that is all that matters.


The greed for life will ultimately be your undoing. So step up to the plate, because only you can save yourself from fucking each other.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: renaeden on February 17, 2018, 04:37:26 AM
I knew it wouldn't take long. I have read a few comments on Facebook where they're speculating whether or not the murderer is on the spectrum.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on February 17, 2018, 04:08:46 PM
This thread should probably be stickied.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on February 17, 2018, 04:10:30 PM
Probably.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Genesis on February 17, 2018, 10:47:56 PM
This thread should probably be stickied.

?????
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Minister Of Silly Walks on February 17, 2018, 10:53:57 PM
Quote
"To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you," she said, drawing an impassioned cheer from the crowd.

"They say tougher guns laws do not decrease gun violence. We call BS. They say a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun. We call BS. They say guns are just tools like knives and are as dangerous as cars. We call BS. They say no laws could have prevented the hundreds of senseless tragedies that have occurred. We call BS. That us kids don't know what we're talking about, that we're too young to understand how the government works. We call BS."

https://honey.nine.com.au/2018/02/18/11/24/emma-gonzalez-florida-shooting-speech
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on February 18, 2018, 03:28:52 AM
This thread should probably be stickied.

?????

There's going to be another, and then another, and another, and...

Might as well make sure that the thread stays on top.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on February 18, 2018, 05:01:30 AM
No need, given how common these are.  :lol1:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on February 18, 2018, 08:47:58 AM
Tougher gun laws DON'T stop gun violence.

Living in the UK, where access to firearms is far more limited by law, it doesn't stop the shootings of innocent people.  Certain places are a fucking source for jokes and area-based put-downs of some of the shittier places regionally local here. They call nottingham 'shottingham', manchester 'gunchester' for example. And salford is rife with gangbanger-comitted shootings, both executions and punishment shootings, kneecappings etc.

The criminal underworld doesn't give a flying fuck about the law to begin with, and as such have no qualms  possessing illegal firearms  and using them when the underworld shit hits the fan. (more than) enough killings of that sort.  Yet how often do you hear about say, a farmer who owns a shotgun killing somebody? I can think of only the tony martin case, where he got arrested and originally convicted of murder, after being repeatedly burgled (and surprise surprise, from the sound of it the pork didn't do much to help HIM), and then from the sound of it, he finally had enough when two thugs broke into his house, and he shot both, hitting one non-fatally, and one badly enough he died at the scene.)

Bloody clusterfuck of a case, with the surviving burglar attempting to sue for compensation.

Personally I think if people go breaking and entering and meet the business end of a baseball bat, get themselves capped or stabbed by a homeowner defending their property or bodily safety then they have only themselves to blame. And christ, your a dumb cunt if you go breaking into a farmer's place, where there are quite probably vicious dogs and someone pretty likely to have a shotgun.

He'd obviously not kept it prepared with the intent to kill an intruder, since he was using a birdshot loadout, rather than buckshot or solid slugs, flechettes etc. and IMO the fuckers got what they deserved. Technically this specific farmer legally hadn't the right to pack a shotgun, and the model (higher capacity magazine pump action) was illegal here. But still, plenty farmers do have one legally, and the situation could have happened to any one of them)

And IMO the higher mag capacity illegal shotgun doesn't really make any difference to the right or wrong of things. He could still have killed them both with a double-barreled shotgun without having to reload.

But you don't hear of farmers with guns just as capable of killing people as an illegal handgun going on the rampage and slaughtering people. Only ever prosecutions for defending their own property where an intruder is shot. Thats a lot different of a motivation to a gangland shooter, or a jihadist. The vast majority of people don't WANT to engage in that kind of activity. Most people are decent people, at least in as far as not going on murder sprees goes, and decent people don't DO that kind of thing, precisely because they ARE decent human beings.

So I don't see the point of gun control here as it is. It leaves those who abide by the law defenseless against attack by those who do not. The crooks don't seem to have a problem getting hold of handguns. Plenty mass-produced eastern european firearms and converted blank-firers around.

Put it this way, if you make firearms criminal, then only the criminals will have firearms. The crims don't give a damn about misusing them to begin with, whereas the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to shoot people.

And you can't stop the odd out-of-the-blue psycho, the kind of nutball that just flips a switch, tools up with whatever is available and goes on a killing spree. Take the guns away, and it still happens. You get a knife-armed spree killer in a school and there is always going to be sufficient time for them to inflict significant casualties.

IMO if there is more of  a chance of otherwise law-abiding or at least nonviolent people packing then that should serve as a factor to discourage random gun violence such as robberies and gangland killings. Such  people are likely to think twice before taking on a target who is able to return fire.

I don't see it lessening the likelihood of fanatic type attackers initiating an attack, not if the attacker is warped by ideology and prepared (or fully intending to) die for their beliefs. But at least there would be the possibility that somewhere in say, a targeted building will be armed and able to take out a few koran-bashers, or in the case of a lone-wolf type attack, put a stop to it entirely before a marksman/SWAT team can get to the scene.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on February 18, 2018, 01:10:42 PM
I think family atomics are the best solution.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on February 18, 2018, 01:56:54 PM
lol. Most people wouldn't even be able to maintain a nuke. Pits need replacing, and boosted nukes would be expensive to maintain, since tritium has such a short half-life.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on February 18, 2018, 03:14:50 PM
Tougher gun laws DON'T stop gun violence.

Living in the UK, where access to firearms is far more limited by law, it doesn't stop the shootings of innocent people.

(https://ventrellaquest.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif?w=660)
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on February 18, 2018, 04:27:39 PM
Are those figures compensated for firearm availability in countries other than the US?

My point is that good people are the majority of people and good people don't commit murders, short of crimes of passion as a rule. Mentally stable, decent people (and there of course is a strong argument for only allowing firearm availability for those who can prove themselves not to be a fruitcake, or are known not to be of bad character in general)

And the psychos, those determined to cause  havoc in some way or another are going to do it whether there are guns available or not. They didn't need  guns for example in the bali nightclub terrorist attack,  they used  backpack and a car bomb based on aluminized potassium chlorate and sulfur (they got lucky, that is a dangerous mixture, chlorates and sulfur are well known as being chemicals that ought not to be mixed, as the sulfur is liable to have a residual acid content and this reacts with the chlorate to form chlorine dioxide, ClO2, a powerful oxidizing agent, and the result is a potential explosion. Of course the terrorists wanted one, but they wouldn't have wanted one to happen other than when directed at their target)

Of course there will be less firearm-related killings in places where access is nonexistent, and comparatively more in countries with equal access to firearms and comparatively denser populations.

Over here the corridors of power shit themselves over firearms in an overzealous way IMO. Its one thing to get a shotgun cert (albeit limited to lower magazine sizes, two in the mag one in the chamber for pump action shotguns, or at most, triple-barreled non magazine-fed shotguns.)

They are so overzealous that until not so long ago, even the olympic pistol target shooting team had to practice overseas (in switzerland IIRC) because of the bans on firearms.

Now, I'm not arguing for people to be able to just walk in to a store and walk out with a .50 cal browning autocannon or minigun, but its not unreasonable to be able to legally apply for a firearms certificate (although here, it exists, but the chances of actually being granted one are nonexistent, firearms certificates are treated differently to those for owning shotguns)

And IMO, if the deaths are counted for home defense situations, those ought not to be counted, because chances are, the bugger deserved it. Any intruder to someone's home IMO should be assumed to  take on their own head any subsequent consequences. If a would-be robber, kidnapper, child molester etc. ends up getting torn apart by a family's pet rottweilers or having their head blown off by a homeowner with a gun then so much the better.

It isn't as if your average homeowner NEEDS the likes of a fully automatic, or a barrett  light .50, but a pistol for self defense in the home isn't unreasonable IMO. And as for the argument of children getting to it, that much is simple-keep it in a locked box that can be quickly opened, or in the case of a shotgun or rifle/carbine etc. keep the ammunition locked up. The same argument goes for those laundry liquid capsules. Kids are tempted by them and can get themselves killed by putting them in their mouths. Answer? keep them where the kids cannot get to them. Access problem solved.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Jack on February 18, 2018, 07:40:54 PM
Are those figures compensated for firearm availability in countries other than the US?
It doesn't matter. Even if statistics were compensated to completely exclude guns, US homicide rates would still be about double the rate of most European countries.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Gopher Gary on February 18, 2018, 08:03:15 PM
And Russia's murder rate is more than twice the US, and they don't even need guns. They don't have any blacks or Mexicans to blame either.  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Calandale on February 18, 2018, 08:08:06 PM
Ban vodka!
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Arya Quinn on February 18, 2018, 09:15:42 PM
This thread should probably be stickied.

There were mass shooting before I was born and before this site went up and it'll continue long after both of us are gone.  :asthing:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on February 18, 2018, 10:32:58 PM
The murder rate would triple overnight, at LEAST.

And shee-yit you aren't going to just ban guns in those soviet block countries. I know someone, I won't say who or where or where from. But lets just say I've seen a pic of that person's stash and christ, would make an american gun nut foam at the mouth..heavy machineguns/autocannons, pretty sure I remember seeing at least a few bloody rocket launchers, plastique, lets just say if all goes postal, I know where I'm headed, or rather who I want to hook up with.

And I shudder to think how much the bugger's got hidden in caches. Don't underestimate the effects of WWII on the eastern european psyche as a whole. Massacres in poland etc. And there are so MANY untracked weapons in the hands of people like this individual that there is no way in hell they want their guns taken from them.

And to make a point-an AWFUL lot of the illegal handguns are russian 9mm Makarov semi-auto pistols, or one of the equivalent polish, hungarian etc. copies (pretty much every country and their family dog bar the USA and UK have either directly used or copied the russian 9mm Makarov, or in the case of the chinese, butchered of course) Bloody lot of the things around and your average underworld figure wouldn't have to cough up that much for one.
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: odeon on February 19, 2018, 03:02:16 AM
And Russia's murder rate is more than twice the US, and they don't even need guns. They don't have any blacks or Mexicans to blame either.  :zoinks:

That's because it's YOUR fault. :orly:
Title: Re: Another US shooting..
Post by: Lestat on February 19, 2018, 10:05:02 AM
Gopher boy, only reason the russkis don't need more guns, blacks or mexicans is that they have all they can eat with some to spare, in all three cases.