Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?
Or only those in schools? Very surprised to see nothing about the school shooting in KY. :/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42797684Maybe because they don't have a catchy hashtag!
Obviously the mainstream press is covering up the shooting to protect the Trump administration. ;)
One of the Foxes, or CNNs talked about it for about 45 seconds.
Not enough bodies I suppose.
All part of the brainwashing. For the same reason so many even today will start smoking cigarettes. Adult logic is not longer relevant. Emotions are the response. It will only be news when consumers start buying 155 mm howitzers for their personal protection.
In the old west, very few had guns. Today, the myths even claim everyone back then had guns. They didn't. But emotions - not reality - are relevant.
Emotions now say mass shootings are their problem.
Its population control. Now that the cops are saving the burglar drug addicts from overdose there has to be some regulated death control.[emoji379]
Is it possible that news outlets have finally started to take on board the advice of experts not to give the public notoriety that so many mass shooters are looking for when they do this?
This wasn't a mass shooting, nor a school shooting, just you average everyday shooting that happened to take place at a school. And the kid was probably white, probably Christian, run of the mill hillbilly. It's just unfortunate the other kids weren't armed or had it in their backpack. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes:
Instead we should arm all students with Stihl saws. Stihl makdes a good saw for that. Then kids need not go running down the highway in winter - need not potentially die from colds.
Best is to always arm everyone. Especially with tools designed to remove arms. History has repeatedly proven that.
Those already wearing black in support of #MeToo are all set for this.
Especially with tools designed to remove arms.
Now, regardless of their emotions, would those tools be hand tools, or, arm tools?
Now, regardless of their emotions, would those tools be hand tools
:p:
Sorry, I couldn't help m'self.
:D
Or only those in schools? Very surprised to see nothing about the school shooting in KY. :/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42797684
I'm pretty sure we're good with that and with the Russians funding politicians through the NRA. No big wup, it's all good, no discussion needed.
Now, regardless of their emotions, would those tools be hand tools, or, arm tools?
Better is advise from Fredy Kruger or Leatherface.
... Very surprised to see nothing about the school shooting in KY. :/ ...
Unless you have evidence that they were also sexually harassed, it doesn't make the priority cut.
I'm pretty sure we're good with that and with the Russians funding politicians through the NRA. No big wup, it's all good, no discussion needed.
Totally no big deal--no need to be a "Chicken Little" when everything is normal and fine.
But, but, it was an
accident.
He says she told him that the gun was in her backpack and that it accidentally went off when she dropped the bag.
Several times. :rolleyes:
Republicans are being woefully short-sighted, just like they were with healthcare. When 90% of the country agrees that something is a problem, then the other guys are going to pass the laws they want to pass as soon as they get back into power. The smartest thing Congress could do right now is pass an immediate ban on AR-15s. They wouldn't lose a single voter over it in November, because they've already lost everyone except their hardcore base anyway. 2018 is a write-off for them. But if they don't do anything, AGAIN, the Dems will pass much more than an assault ban when they inevitably win a majority of seats this fall.
I'll tell you something else, too: I believe guns will become completely illegal in my lifetime. Because 3D printing is soon going to make any kind of partial restriction meaningless. They'll have to ban them entirely, including possession and dissemination of the patterns, in order to have any hope of controlling the criminals. Obviously there will still be a black market, but it'll be like child pornography: the kind of thing you go to jail just for owning.
The cost would be lives. Many lives. It would be generations before ya made up the difference in saved lives.
Didja know, this year is the first year that millennials aged 18 and up outnumber boomers?
This shooting is different. You can feel it. The number of teens who filmed it with their phones, the number of teens responding directly to bullshit "thoughts and prayers" politicians about what they saw with their own eyes. Mark my words, they're going to turn out in record numbers to vote.
Rubio is done for.
Also, by the way:
www.draintheNRA.com. Find out what corporations are in bed with them. The boycotts are starting.
... Mark my words, they're going to turn out in record numbers to vote. ... Also, by the way: www.draintheNRA.com. Find out what corporations are in bed with them. The boycotts are starting.
Record numbers won't be enough. It's still going to be only those directly involved and a few others within their realm of influence. The vast majority will be apathetic. They'll be out of school and preoccupied with making a living figuring it's now someone else's problem. That's the way their parents have raised them.
As for boycotts, the prognosis isn't any better this time than for the last few dozen times it's been done.
I'm glad to say farewell to the boomers. The millennials I know are very connected with each other in a way that we don't get. They know that organizations like the NRA and the GOP stand between their generation and what they see as sensible solutions to generational problems. I have one very politically engaged kid and one who hates politics but they both vote every time.
I used to buy the whole 2nd Amendment and libertarian line and it took me an embarrassingly long time to figure out they are just a smoke screens for the most reactionary elements in our society.
Finishing Population Wars after setting it aside for too long, evolutionary biology has a lot to say about our politics and it is not an endorsement of survival of the fittest. Assimilation and accommodation more accurately describe survival.
Stream on consciousness off ramp... The GOP controlled house is going after Pappy Bushes' American's with Disabilities Act again.
Teen, stopped before his rampage, journaled about planning his school shooting
I think a lot of them study the previous ones, and this guy did:
O’Connor wrote that he wanted the death count to be as high as possible so that the shooting would be infamous, according to court papers. He went into detail about building pressure-cooker bombs, activating inert grenades and deploying explosives for maximum casualties.
"I need to make this count," O’Connor reportedly wrote. "I’ve been reviewing many mass shootings/bombings (and attempted bombings) I’m learning from past shooters/bombers mistakes."
I hope that these types do not figure out any way other than guns to kill large numbers of people, because if they do, that will just become the new way.
Re: The Florida School shooter
Can we [SIZE="5"]please[/SIZE] get this motherfucker's picture and name off of every tv channel and webpage?
Absolutely. A complete blackout from here on.
I just wish this could be treated as a public health issue.
There would still be anti-vaxers. :(
I just wish this could be treated as a public health issue.
Many decades ago, the NRA got laws passed to ban medical research into gun violence.
The guy is too young to buy a beer. It is illegal for him to buy a 9 mm pistol. But it was completely legal for him to buy a rifle whose only purpose is to kill many people quickly.
And laws do not require his purchased to be in a database where cops could associate 39 calls for police with a guy who owns an assault rifle.
In short, NRA opposition to anything that would harm sales even makes it impossible to deal with a mental health issue.
A gun literally changes the mindset of the person. But even research into that had been banned many decades ago.
From facts and how so many think, no where near not enough school kids have died yet. We need far more violence long before this problem will be considered. The changed mindset associated with holding a loaded gun is that massive.
[YOUTUBE]3HKFiH4jhnw[/YOUTUBE]
But he's a Canadian so he doesn't understand. :p:
Public school students need to make friends among Catholic school students so they can borrow their
patron saints to watch over them; 'cause, you know, the parents and schools aren't cutting it. :bolt:
On a serious note they had patron saints on staff Aaron Feis and Scott Beigel.
Fake news, created out of whole cloth by 4chan, spread by AP, ABC, ADL
Reported by Politico:
How white nationalists fooled the media about Florida shooter
The ADL traced its original tip to posts on 4chan, where researchers found "self-described ROF members" claiming that Cruz was a brother-in-arms. But many of those posts seem to have been written specifically to deceive reporters and researchers.
On Wednesday, an anonymous 4chan user posted about receiving a message on Instagram from an ABC News reporter after making a joke suggesting he knew Cruz.
"Prime trolling opportunity," another user replied.
"You have to take advantage of this," a third chimed in.
He asked for proof of the reporter’s identity, according to posted screenshots from their correspondence. The reporter provided an official email address and sent a photo of an ABC identification badge.
Some on the 4chan thread joked about sending back obscene photos, but others gave concrete tips for tricking the reporter: "Keep talking to her so she gains your trust"; "Keep this going be realistic ... say you have known him for years you met him on a Liberal Facebook page years ago and you have kept in touch"; "Say you are scared to tell her in case you get blamed, it will get her excited you know something big."
This particular 4chan user seems to have sent the reporter a racist cartoon and was quickly blocked. Many on the forum ripped into him for missing a "a golden opportunity."
It's been ages since I was on 4chan, but at the time I was there, they weren't white nationalists, just youngsters looking for vaguely anti-social laughs. They would gladly tell you they were white nationalists if it was funny to them, just like young people will sometimes use the n word in order to test their own boundaries and/or rile things up.
my 2009 thread where 4chan ordered pizzas delivered to the asshat who claimed his kid was in a balloon, and watched on national media as Papa John's arrived at the house - it was all for the lulz.
my 2009 thread where 4chan hacked the Time Most Influential People poll to read "MARBLECAKE ALSO THE GAME" down the left-hand side Nawwww, Trump should close the schools that failed to protect the children and reassign the children to other schools that don't have that record of failure and Trump should consider removing any remaining children from the custody of parents whose gross personal security negligence failed to protect one of theirs.
As for the hat, there's an old saying: Patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel, it has no bearing on those who sport the motto and do good by it. Any inference that it does comes from just another scoundrel.
From CBS News on 17 Feb 2018:
White House refuses to release photo of Trump signing bill to weaken gun law
the rule following the Sandy Hook massacre ... was finalized in December 2016. Had it been allowed to remain effect, it would have added about 75,000 names of mentally ill Americans to a database that would have stopped them from buying a gun.
On the day the bill was signed, the National Rifle Association (NRA) put out a press release quoting NRA Executive Director Chris Cox: "Today marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we have now have a president who respects and supports our right to keep and bear arms."
A little over a month after his inauguration, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, a bill that made it easier for people with mental illness to obtain guns. CBS News then asked the White House to release the photograph of Mr. Trump signing the bill, making the request a total of 12 times.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders finally responded to repeated emails and phone calls with a one-line note on April 19, 2017, writing to CBS News, "We don't plan to release the picture at this time."
A White House photographer confirmed to CBS News that there are photos of the bill signing. Those photos won't be seen unless the Trump administration releases them, though, because the White House is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Apparently another few thousand kids must die before we will even consider a solution and sane leaders.
The rule adversely affected Americans with disabilities who depended on Social Security Disability payments. It potentially enabled their rights to be abridged without a court order just because they're disabled.
From Wikipedia:
The rule would require that the Social Security administration report to the Attorney General recipients found to be disabled in order for them to be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[2] To qualify for reporting, an individual would have had to meet two criteria:
• determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or to others
•They have to be receiving full disability benefits and couldn't find work.
•They require the assistance of a third party to manage their own benefits
[BOLD MINE]
Boards, commissions, or other lawful authority get to effectively rescind privileges; but, not rights and certainly not because some administrative rule says they can.
It was an ill conceived rule, a typical knee jerk reaction by emotional sheeple trying, in their hysteria, to find a panacea by including provisions for bypassing the courts and eliminating due process.
How would you propose the bill be written differently?
In the absence of a previous court ruling, the Social Security Administration would submit its information to a court which would decide, after affording the subject legal representation and deliberation, if a report should be made to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The Executive branch shouldn't have unilateral control over what rights people have and especially not for those who are among the most vulnerable of citizens ... the disabled.
Wow. Massive bureaucracy so that nothing happens.
The law was created after Seung-Hui Cho created his Virginia Tech massacre. He was known with mental problems. But bureaucracy made it impossible to protect Virginia Tech students.
The law said a government agency that knows of people who should not have a gun must report that name to a central database - the NICS. No problem. If information is wrong, then the list is appealed in court. Some 4000 did appeal and had their names removed from the list for various reasons include a restoration of mental health. Something approaching 2 million (if I remember that number) had their names remain on that list.
NRA will chip away at protection. So the Donald said the Social Security Administration cannot report (what is maybe 75,000) mentally ill people to that list. All part of a process to increase sales - which is the only purpose of that industry organization.
He used the word 'disability'. That is NRA word spinning. Only disability reported to the NICS is mental illness - people who should not be sold assault weapons. That 'disability' can no longer be reported since a self proclaimed genius wants more massacres.
Only disability reported to the NICS is mental illness - people who should not be sold assault weapons.
That is an awfully broad brush we're waving about there. There are many different kinds of mental illness.
In cases of mass shootings, while mental illness may be a factor it's rarely the determining factor.
You can be mentally ill or unstable without being wicked - and you can be plenty wicked without being mentally ill.
Not to mention that administratively taking away people's Constitutional rights and making them go to court to prove that they should have them is bass ackwards and not what this country is about. Fear will make the weak try to do that though.
That is an awfully broad brush we're waving about there.
Only broad brush was the simple summary of a more complex law that Trump want to continue to destroy. Only discussed is an extemely limited restriction - an almost no restriction. If anything better could exist, then it would have been proposed here. Nothing was because no better solution exists except those that eliminate so many more loopholes.
Nobody needs a gun the minute he feels he needs it. Filters sometimes slow that purchase. No problem for anyone - ever. Worse, anyone who needs a gun can go to gun shows where restrictions are bypassed. The problem is too few filters and restrictions. So we need to eliminate them all?
In a local convention center, what was the largest show they ever had? The gun show one day after Sandy Hook. Guns were not purchased to protect their kid' schools. Fears that assault weapons would finally be restricted increases sales among the emotional who
need military weapons.
This Cruz kid could not by alcohol and could not buy an 9 mm handgun. Without trivial restrictions compromised, he can immediately buy an assault rifle - no questions asked.
Cho apparently had mental illness. But laws said he had every right to buy assault weapons, oversized magazines, and all the munitions he wanted. Because we must not learn who is danagerous? We have not yet killed enough (thousands of) kids yet. How many thousands must die before some finally admit we have no where near enough demands for responsibility.
You can be mentally ill and not be wicked? Fine. Then remove laws that have restricted research. NRA successfully got this research banned decades ago.
Who did Trump protect? The mentally ill. Anyone wonder why?
Trump obviously believes your rights should be protected.
Trump obviously believes your rights should be protected.
Trump has a long history of trampling on other's right. Trump is only now advocating the banning of bum stocks because his popularity (due to so many assault rifles) is threatened. Trump does not care about anyone but himself and his kids.
He has even demonstrated less respect for his wives.
Just wondering when he will trade this one in for a newer model.
Not to mention that administratively taking away people's Constitutional rights and making them go to court to prove that they should have them is bass ackwards and not what this country is about. Fear will make the weak try to do that though.
That interpretation implies that every potential gun owner would be forced to actively prove their competence before purchasing (as it is in Japan, for example.) The proposed mental health laws in this case are only taking away Constitutional rights from those who have already gone out of their way to prove themselves unfit. We also have Constitutional rights to life and freedom, but we routinely take those away when the situation warrants it.
That interpretation implies that every potential gun owner would be forced to actively prove their competence before purchasing (as it is in Japan, for example.) ...
That's your non sequitur extrapolation, not my implication.
... The proposed mental health laws in this case are only taking away Constitutional rights from those who have already gone out of their way to prove themselves unfit.
[BOLD MINE]
Not "only", that's why this:
... If information is wrong, then the list is appealed in court. Some 4000 did appeal and had their names removed from the list for various reasons ...
We also have Constitutional rights to life and freedom, but we routinely take those away when the situation warrants it.
Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.
So, what was the mental illness for which Cruz should have had his Constitutional rights taken away preemptively?
Cruz had been diagnosed with autism, a neurological disorder that often leads to social awkwardness and isolation, and attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.
If we can have commissions or boards make these determinations, then why not school boards to nip these people in the bud before they're even old enough to figure out how to get into trouble. Maybe they should also be barred from ever voting because they might want to vote for someone like Trump!.
Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.
This country has a history of intentionally subverting research into better oversight - because research into gun violence would only hurt profits.
If honestly addressing this problem, then your every post should be screaming for research into gun violence. Why not? Only those who love the profits generated by massacres are not screaming for research and solutions.
The kid could not even buy a beer. And could not even buy a 9 mm pistol. But had every right to buy a gun that only has one purpose - massacre people.
We even ban people from their constitutional right to vote. But protect their right to buy hardware that is designed to maximize the death of other people.
... If honestly addressing this problem, then your every post should be screaming for research into gun violence. Why not?
Because gun violence is a red herring. The problem is people violence. Until those who like you let fear filter their perceptions while grasping at scapegoats and panaceas come to terms with that, we'll just keep Trump in the White House. :cool:
Those are subject to oversight, that mental health rule was not. This country has a history of insufficient oversight in the management of those with mental illness.
So, what was the mental illness for which Cruz should have had his Constitutional rights taken away preemptively?
But there was oversight, via committee. Just like there is oversight in the committee of epilepsy specialists that currently says whether I'm legally allowed to have a drivers license. And yes, I'm fine with people with a diagnosis of autism being preemptively put on a no-guns list. They can appeal.
FYI, school districts are not legally allowed to make diagnoses now, nor will it ever be in their best interest to do so: a kid with a diagnosis is eligible for services the schools don't want to pay for. They go out of their way to keep a diagnosis off the school record, even when the parent has one from a doctor.
But there was oversight, via committee. Just like there is oversight in the committee of epilepsy specialists that currently says whether I'm legally allowed to have a drivers license. ..
Apples and oranges, a right vs a privilege. I've already covered the difference in legitimate oversight between the two and your circular argument is not favorably considered.
... And yes, I'm fine with people with a diagnosis of autism being preemptively put on a no-guns list. They can appeal. ...
It's dandy, that you're fine with this. It's swell that others are not. We'll see at the polls just like last time. :cool:
Sweet dreams.
Here's part of the problem, when you're childish and are only driven by emotion you see ordinary hunting rifle, to scary looking military assault rifle people killer.
But the fact is every one of them is a bolt action Remington 700 rifle.
Every. Fucking. One.
Baloney. The problem is not that the childish and emotional see something like that on the store wall and get scared. The problem is that real assault rifles are in circulation, and being used to slaughter people. When the actual murder machines are banned, then we can talk about what to do with the little ol' guns that never hurt a fly.
Real assault rifles are very illegal and extremely expensive. None of the examples above are assault rifles, but the perception of the masses reacting to the appearance means there can be no dialog.
The masses are afraid of the scary looking ones, and the nut jobs are attracted to the scary looking ones. The scary looking ones are only marketed because they have an emotional impact on everyone. Good guy or bad. If you get rid of the scary looking ones, will the bad guys want to get a farmer's wood stock gun to do their terrorizing?
This was discussed in detail here about 15 years ago (maybe longer). Facts stated then are now well proven. As number of guns increases, violent gun deaths increase massively. It has been a fact all over the world for hundreds of years. Assault weapons have increased massively in the past twenty years. We have not yet even begun to accept reality. We have seen exactly what was predicted here 15 years ago. And still some continue to deny - emotionally.
How ironic. Since owning and carrying a bigger gun does change a person's emotions. They become more entitled. And suddenly feel righteous authority. A gun changes a person's attitude.
How many guns were available in the old west? Lies (myths, fiction, hearsay, speculation, westerns) assumed everyone out west had and needed a gun. Reality. Research confirms that among maybe 15 wagons might be only three or four guns. As was so obvious even 15 years ago, a gun cost about one or two year's wages. Back then, 'automobile type' finance plan did not exist. Pioneers had to plan in advance who would first fire so that the few others with guns still had a loaded gun.
Only two places made all guns - Harper's Ferry and Springfield MA.. Guns were never the magic tool that we have all been told must have existed. Myths and fears of today did not exist back then. The west was not as dangerous as the emotional are told to believe today.
Same fears and emotions now justify assault weapons for protection. Include what we have all learned from the news. Defense with a handgun is almost useless against assault weapons with large clips. Virtually impossible. As was demonstrated by an armed guard in Columbine and in Kentucky. As demonstrated by hundreds of police trying to stop two bank robbers in LA. As demonstrated by the actions of Sheriff deputies recently in FL.
Only the emotional and ignorant think fortifying schools will help. We know it is stupid because the Donald also recommended it. Fortifying only works when same hardware fortifies every mall, post office, every airport and train station, etc. Did extremists forget to mention that? Of course. This problem is only created by too many weapons sold to wackos who need high velocity projectiles fed by large clips. Since that makes them even feel better. Projectiles that only have one purpose - murder on a mass scale. Guns that make even armed deputies think twice before confronting them.
Did an LA bank robbery not yet make that obvious to everyone? So how many still did not learn that - instead listen to a wacko president promoting lies and more gun sales. Assault rifles mean even police can only be victims - not be protection.
Instead of teaching kids, we must put diminishing school budgets (diminishing thanks to the same extremists who need military and more civilians with guns) into fortifying schools. Only armed resource officer that can provide any protection must constantly wear helmets, body armour, and M-15 assault rifles with large clips. We must have SWAT in every school - according to extremists. And stop putting money into education. Since education only creates moderates.
The NRA is a lobby to increase gun manufacturer profits. Of course the NRA advocated more guns, more body armor, and education money diverted into highly armed guards at every school. That increases profits. We must leave shoppers, drivers, homes, and commuters unprotected so that more assault weapons can be sold.
Only one problem exists. We have hundreds of thousands of assault rifles everywhere in America. Even an old west was never as dangerous as the NRA now wants America to be. We cannot even do research into gun violence since that will also reduce sales and profits. Research into gun violence was banned because of what the early research discovered.
NRA was never about protecting people. Their myth is to increase profits. NRA even got customers to pay (dues) for promoting those companies. Purpose of the NRA is - profits. Promoting lies and fears - and more assault rifles - means everyone must now waste money on guns. Less educated kids means more extremists who can be manipulate by NRA propaganda.
If assault rifles are needed, then so are M-60 grenade launchers and 155 mm howitzers. Both are needed for the exact same reason (myth). Profits.
Worst case of hoplophobia I ever saw.
This was discussed in detail here about 15 years ago (maybe longer). Facts stated then are now well proven. As number of guns increases, violent gun deaths increase massively. It has been a fact all over the world for hundreds of years. Assault weapons have increased massively in the past twenty years.
Whoops, lost your credibility right there. :headshake
Worst case of hoplophobia I ever saw.
Worst attempt at
honest debate I ever saw. *
shrug*
Whoops, lost your credibility right there. :headshake
In point of fact, we don't have any idea how many assault-type weapons are out there,
Nobody knows exactly how many assault rifles exist in the U.S. – by design
but I think it's a safe bet to say there are many more today than there were 20 years ago.
Worst attempt at honest debate I ever saw. *shrug*
It's previously been debated here several times. The outcome was that Trump got elected. This latest iteration is more for entertainment.
In point of fact, we don't have any idea how many assault-type weapons are out there,
Nobody knows exactly how many assault rifles exist in the U.S. – by design
but I think it's a safe bet to say there are many more today than there were 20 years ago.
Don't put any of your hard earned money on that bet... you'd lose it.
Assault rifles and any other automatic weapons (read machine guns), have been illegal since the '30s, without a government license that involves a background check and costs hundreds of dollars a year.
I'm totally on board with regulation, total ban on automatics and background checks at gun shows. But berating the AR-15 or any other rifle that looks scary is tilting at windmills. Even if successful would do no good.
Don't put any of your hard earned money on that bet... you'd lose it.
Oh, I strongly doubt that.
Assault rifles and any other automatic weapons (read machine guns), have been illegal since the '30s, without a government license that involves a background check and costs hundreds of dollars a year.
From my link:
The only figures available that give even a hint of how many assault rifles may exist in the U.S. is manufacturer data. ATF publishes annual reports on the number of pistols, rifles, revolvers and shotguns manufactured and distributed in the U.S., but none of those categories are broken down more specifically, and there’s no way of knowing how many were actually sold to individuals.
Still, while limited, that data would seem to indicate the popularity of rifles and pistols has exploded in the past decade — manufacturing of guns in both categories has more than doubled. In 2007, 1.6 million rifles were made and distributed in the U.S., while by 2016 the number was up to 4.2 million.
I'm totally on board with regulation, total ban on automatics and background checks at gun shows. But berating the AR-15 or any other rifle that looks scary is tilting at windmills. Even if successful would do no good.
I've not berated the AR-15 or any other rifle that "looks scary." :eyebrow:
You know, I'm no gun hater. I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door (purchased specifically and solely to protect my chickens). But there are VERY effective solutions to the rampant gun problem we have here in the US (eg. UK, Australia). We just don't want to go there. We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.
Is it worth it? Is it really? Speaking just for myself, I say no. :neutral:
It's previously been debated here several times. The outcome was that Trump got elected.
Gun debates on this website resulted in Trump being elected? What?
Call me crazy, but I don't think being a jerk in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting is much of a solution.
This latest iteration is more for entertainment.
You find the citizenry's distress over
another pile of bodies filled with bullets "entertaining?"
Wow.
The wacky antics of sheeple are always entertaining. You're sounding like the boy who cried wolf and Chicken Little all rolled into one. That is indeed entertaining.
Oh, I strongly doubt that.
You're wrong, assault rifles are illegal.
I've not berated the AR-15 or any other rifle that "looks scary." :eyebrow:
As soon as you call guns that look scary "assault rifles", that's exactly what you're doing.
You know, I'm no gun hater. I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door (purchased specifically and solely to protect my chickens). But there are VERY effective solutions to the rampant gun problem we have here in the US (eg. UK, Australia). We just don't want to go there. We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.
Is it worth it? Is it really? Speaking just for myself, I say no. :neutral:
Care to break those numbers down? How many were hand guns? Don't they look scary enough to do something about?
Fact Check:
Lankford pointed out the high proportion of crimes committed with handguns after NBC host Chuck Todd pressed him on whether the AR-15, the weapon used in the Parkland, Fla. shooting, should remain classified as a rifle.
“So there are three or four, five times as many crimes committed with a handgun than there are with a rifle. So we can have that conversation. But when you look at the statistics, many, many, many more shootings occur with a pistol than they do with a rifle,” Lankford said on “Meet the Press.”
His office pointed The Daily Caller News Foundation to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) on firearms used in murders. By that measure, Lankford is right that handguns are used much more often than rifles.
Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the UCR data. Handguns killed nine times as many victims as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders.
Firearms are the most common murder weapon, accounting for over half of the murders each year from 2007 to 2016. The FBI’s UCR shows that 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in 2016 were committed with firearms.
All these reports exclude suicides.
I think we should consider why the military switched from the M-1 and M-14 to the M-16. They wanted something light that anybody can easily carry and doesn't beat up the shooter when firing a bunch of rounds. The AR 15 is a weapon which any dope can shoot a lot of rounds out of and now they apparently do. The small .223 round is not a deer hunter because it's an organ shredder rather than a knock down round. The heavy bolt action sporterized rifles circa WWI are good shooters for hunting with enough kick that you know you're doing damage.
I'd like to see the end of semi-auto civilian weapons and high capacity magazines. I really think the 2nd Amendment fantasy needs to meet the reality. Who do you intend to shoot with your AR? At this point we've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like a fantasy about shooting American soldiers and American cops.
Don't need semi-autos, the rifleman did quite well without it. This whole dog&pony show is drawing attention away from the bigger problem, hand guns, because they don't make big enough headlines.
What's another drug user here and a nigger there, I live in the safe 'burbs. :facepalm:
... I really think the 2nd Amendment fantasy needs to meet the reality. Who do you intend to shoot with your AR? At this point we've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like a fantasy about shooting American soldiers and American cops.
OTOH a lot of people think your panacea fantasy needs to meet the 2nd Amendment reality that civilians want the personal issue firearms military and police use in self defense, for the same advantages, believing they have the same right to life. Compromises have already been reached. Fully automatic firearms are not generally available to the public and they don't get to attach silencers, bayonets; or, grenade launchers to them either. The line between offensive and defensive capability of the firearms has been drawn.
But there are those who want to blur the line based on whether the firearm is used legally; or, illegally. It's usually those who have no need or interest in them. But these same people would never consider giving up the kinds of things THEY need or want, like privately owned vehicles, that may be used illegally (or accidently) to take innocent lives. Oh no, that's different.
Then it becomes a numbers game:
Well what you need or want costs more in innocent lives than what I need or want so you have to give yours up; but, I don't have to give up mine ... and there's more people who want what I want so the cost in lives is acceptable ... and anyone who says only professional drivers should have vehicles; or, no one should have a vehicle that goes over 15 mph to save innocent lives is nuts. If they refer to us responsible vehicle owners as crazed child killers and boycott car manufacturers because of the actions of a few bad drivers, we'll join the National Drivers Association and lobby for our hypocrisy!
We've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like an American fantasy about the freedom of the road and driving on vacations. How about all those drivers who have cars that are too big and too fast for their needs. All that power affects their minds and turns them into reckless pedal to the metal killers. Yet, these people who won't give up the excessive privilege of driving privately owned vehicles in order to save innocent lives want others to give up the basic right to firearms that can save their owners' lives. Who you going to save with your privately owned motor vehicle? People have gotten along just fine with horses for hundreds of years. I'd like to see the end of sheeple hypocrisy.
^Heh, heh. I did a tw with a twist with Griff.^
When you pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel. :mad2:
Anything that fires NATO rounds and with high velocity is an assault weapon. Anything that can fire bullets through cars to shoot police officers is an assault weapon. Anything that drives off arm guards while massacring students is an assault weapon. Anything with large clips is only for mass murder of people. Those things are not illegal - despite denials. In Florida, a kid, who cannot drink alcohol and not buy a 9 mm pistol, can also legally buy an assault weapon. And he did - legally.
Worse, so many adults knew and considered it acceptable. How extremist are so many adults?
What has massively increased in numbers in the past 20 years? Assault weapons. Why are school, malls, roads, and movie theaters more dangerous? What changed? A massive and recent increase in assault weapons in civilian hands.
That (and not illegal immigrants) are the problem. Who suffers because wackos love the 'big dic' power provided by a gun with large clips and high velocity ammunition? Moderates. People who were once safe before all this hardware was made freely available.
Just up the street, a church usher shot in the head a parishioner who was causing a disturbance. He felt that shooting was justified even after convicted in court. Others noted the problem. He was entitled so he needed a gun. Another example of how a mind is changed by a gun. How more entitled would he have been with an assault rifle? So we need him to protect us all - even from noisy parishioners.
The assault weapons ban in 1994 expired ten years later. The day after Sandy Hook, the gun show selling assault weapons (without any background check required) had its largest even attendance. Despite denials, assault weapons are selling in record numbers in the country that apparently loves to use their student for target practice.
The death rate due to gun shooting in schools is about every three days. Attempted massacres in 2018 has been one per week. But this is because schools, that were safe 30 years ago, are the reason for all these mass shootings - according a president and other extremists.
Clearly more assault weapons do not explain this:
Not now tw, the grown-ups are talking. Go play with your Write MY Own Dictionary word game.
Honestly, the world seen through his imagination must be quite entertaining.
Not now tw, the grown-ups are talking.
Go yank your dic like a good wacko extremist. Or is that sentence require intelligence you never had.
The Donald loves you tw. He loves all his developmentally impaired constituents. He's sad your condition precludes his putting you on his list.
The last two shoot faster than the rest, if you measure over, say, 100 rounds, and have your magazines preloaded. And bump stocks would only fit the last one.
OTOH a lot of people think your panacea fantasy needs to meet the 2nd Amendment reality that civilians want the personal issue firearms military and police use in self defense, for the same advantages, believing they have the same right to life. Compromises have already been reached. Fully automatic firearms are not generally available to the public and they don't get to attach silencers, bayonets; or, grenade launchers to them either. The line between offensive and defensive capability of the firearms has been drawn.
Now we're talking self defense rather than a well regulated militia. If your concern is Al Q swinging by the house because of an anti-special ops vendetta maybe your military background gives you a desire to turn offensive. From a civilian perspective, an armed intruder is best handled with a shotgun. If I want a fire fight with the Sheriff's department then I want an AR. I don't want to get into it with the cops or the national guard etc... I like my chances in court and I think conservatism is agreeable to a functional rule of law.
like privately owned vehicles, that may be used illegally (or accidently) to take innocent lives. Oh no, that's different.
Inspections, drivers tests, seat-belts, airbags, speed limits, my freedom ends where your nose begins.
*sigh*
So tiresome.
Just ban all goddamned guns and confiscate [color=#FFFFFF]*[/color]'em (if folks don't turn 'em in).
Then we can get back to building that communitarian utopia.
[color=#FFFFFF]*good luck gettin mine, motherfuckers [/color]
We've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like an American fantasy about the freedom of the road and driving on vacations. How about all those drivers who have cars that are too big and too fast for their needs. All that power affects their minds and turns them into reckless pedal to the metal killers.
How many 2000 and 5000 horsepower cars are on your road? Your reasoning constantly ignores perspective - which is what extremists do. You have again invented a fear that does not exist.
Love of big guns (an emotion) is why deaths in schools, on roads, and in malls are increasing. Only emotions define your needs and fears. Clearly logic has not. Nobody here needs an assault weapon. Highways do not have 5000 horsepower cars.
If properly trained, the bad guy will be well inside an effective radius before you realize he is a bad guy. Research says that weapon is three times more likely to be used on you than on a bad guy. That is from adult whose brains think rationally. And denied by brains that make conclusions from emotions - and irrational fears.
Same irrational fear are causing increasing massacres - now about one a week. No civilian needs an assault rifle and big clips. But some are so emotional today that their kid can no longer walk from a school bus, one quarter mile, to home. Because it is too dangerous. More examples of adults who are still children.
"You have again invented a fear that does not exist."
As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and on and on.
I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the lot of you if you all just admitted what you want.
Joe or Stan or Nick commits a crime, but should I be punished?
Sam rapes multiples of women, children, and even men, but I should be forced to eat saltpeter?
Louis drives his Ford Focus through a crowd, injuring and killing a whack of folks, but I should be denied my Focus, or submit to have a governor installed so I can't go faster than ten miles an hour?
Nick kills a buncha teens with a gun, but I should be hobbled?
You buncha silly bastids... :angry:
Even perfect drivers need a license and insurance, and cars must meet safety standards.
*Only reason for licensing is so a buck can slide into the public coffers.
*Only reason for insurance (mandatory) is so a buck can slde into the provider's bank account.
*Only reason for gov-mandated safety standards (instead of market-mandated standards) is that pesky buck again.
But, it's apples and oranges: there is no group lookin' to 'de-car' folks.
*there's another reason: plain, old-fashioned, control...makin' it apples and apples after all.
*Only reason for insurance (mandatory) is so a buck can slide into the provider's bank account.
And to share the risk.
*Only reason for licensing is so a buck can slide into the public coffers.
Then there's that little thing where you are making sure a person can drive before they get on the road. It doesn't come naturally, and insurance charts are very clear that new drivers suck, for the most part.
*Only reason for licensing is so a buck can slide into the public coffers.
*Only reason for insurance (mandatory) is so a buck can slde into the provider's bank account.
*Only reason for gov-mandated safety standards (instead of market-mandated standards) is that pesky buck again.
You know the reasons. It would be redundant to list them when everyone already knows them.
But, it's apples and oranges: there is no group lookin' to 'de-car' folks.
I'm certainly happy that people who do not qualify, or do not comply, with the regulation of cars are de-carred. You don't need to find a "group lookin' to" do something that is routinely done already.
But if you need to have such a group, I'm sure you could find some ecological group advocating the elimination of cars.
Their existence wouldn't justify the elimination of licenses, insurance, or safety standards on cars.
And the existence of groups that want to ban all guns doesn't justify the elimination of gun control laws.
Oh, I'm all for 'em...seriously...hell, ban guns completely! Can't be more control-y than that.
Won't make a damn bit of difference, but it'll make a whole whack of peopke 'feel better' and 'feel safe' (for a while, anyway).
So -- yeah -- control the hell out of those guns.
#
"risk"
If there was some way to eliminate it...hmmm.
There's a fellow -- Alastair Young -- who writes nano and meta- nano at 'The Eldraeverse'. One of his entries is about the major powers of his setting. One particular passage stands out...
Equality Concord
The Equality Concord and its dozen worlds share the dubious distinction of being the galaxy’s only genuinely functional, non-corrupt, decent-standard-of-living-enabled, etc., communist state.
(As opposed to genuinely non-functional communist states, like the former People’s State of Bantral.)
That’s because the Concord’s founders recognized the fundamental problem of Real True Communism requiring a whole set of instincts and drives and incentives and desires that are not commonly found among sophonts as nature made them. So they studied the gentle art of sophotechnology, and they built themselves some nice bionic implants to fix that problem, and create the perfect collectivist people for their perfect collectivist utopia. And then, and this is the important bit, they avoided the classic trap by applying the implants to themselves before applying them to anyone else.
It works. It may not be the most innovative of regimes, or the wealthiest, or up there on whatever other metric you choose to apply, but it does work, and self-perpetuates quite nicely.
Pity about that whole “free will” thing, but you can’t make an omelette, right?
You first.
Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance. To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.
But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.
As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, ...
This type person justifies assault weapons. We all need protection from such people who are so easily manipulated by Joseph McCarthy and other enemies of America. We might as well include the State Department and US Army in that commie list since that is what such logic *proved*.
Too many adults are still children. These are brown shirts so easily manipulated using soundbyte reasoning, fictional fears, and other emotions.
He demonstrates why assault weapons in the hands of civilians are so dangerous. And why killing increases with more such weapons. Thank you henry quick for making obvious the actual threat.
This is fun.
“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
“Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance.”
Yeah, that’s one interpretation.
#
“To "eliminate" risk would remove the need for insurance.”
Implants, baby.
#
“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”
I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.
##
“This type person justifies assault weapons”
Nope. I advocate for self-direction and -responsibility. You’d rob folks of that just to ‘feel safe’.
#
“enemies of America”
Me? Quite the opposite. I want a ‘free’ America where elected folks are seen as employees, where individuals can take on risk (reaping the benefits or suffering the consequences), and where where the majority understands that the pursuit of ‘safety’ is an exercise in diminishing returns.
You, you’re the enemy, not of America but of the individual. You’d see us all outfitted with one of Young’s fictional implants if you could.
Admit it, you big communitarian.
#
“Too many adults are still children”
Agreed. Such folks will gladly trade off their (and others) real autonomy for the ghost whispers of *‘safety’. Folks like you, tw.
*’course, that not really what it’s about... :neutral:
“Note that the previous mention of "risk" was about "sharing" it, which is the purpose of insurance.”
Yeah, that’s one interpretation.
No, it's the actual context.
And to share the risk.
“But the fact that it is impossible to eliminate risk is no reason not to decrease it.”
I’m thinkin’ you have a lower tolerance for risk than me.
If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance.
If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess.
"No, it's the actual context."
No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.
But, it's an interpretation.
"If you view any reduction of risk as meaningless until it can reduce the risk to 0%, that's a pretty low tolerance."
Never said or implied any of this nonsense.
Just the opposite: was damn clear, ban the fuckin' guns, confiscate what you can...won't make a damn bit of difference (and I sure won't cooperate) but you'll 'feel better' (which is what all this about, yes?).
#
"If you're just using talk of the impossibility of "eliminating" risk as a distraction from any talk of reducing it, then, yay for you, I guess."
Yay for me, always. That's beside the pont which got ain't nuthin' to do with distractions. Seems to me I'm lookin' the issue ('gun' and 'gun user') square in the face.
Just waitin' on the rest of you to do the same (but not tw...he ain't capable of facin' anything not approved by the politburo).
henry quick couldn't identify a communist even it one stabbed him in the back. Because that would be other members of his platoon.
tw = rabid, agency-killing, communitarian.
Identified. Easy-peasy.
"No, it's the actual context."
No, that's Dana's conventional interpretation, fostered by official statements from providers, and the elected. It may actually spread the risk or allow it to be shared, but that's not the reason for it, just the coincidental byproduct.
But, it's an interpretation.
Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.
You talk about
your tolerance for risk. That's fine - it's up to you if you want to insure
your risk. The mandatory nature of motor insurance is because of the third party element.
Do you know the history of insurance? I do - and sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development.
She’s right you know. I studied the history of insurance, too. Lloyd’s coffee shop, the sharing of risk and the sharing of gain from the actual (seafaring) adventures ....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yeah, Loyd's is the granddaddy of insurance, but not the premise.
It started when primitive people started banding into groups/villages, one for all, all for one.
Trump has a long history of trampling on other's right. Trump is only now advocating the banning of bum stocks because his popularity (due to so many assault rifles) is threatened. Trump does not care about anyone but himself and his kids.
He has even demonstrated less respect for his wives.
Just wondering when he will trade this one in for a newer model.
I remember when Ivana took the Donald back to court for more alimony. She said I can't live on $75,000 a month. Seems to me like he took care of her.
That crack about confiscating firearms without due process should give us all pause. Sen Flake may have him pegged though, whoever talked to him last...
He's an idiot. Truly an idiot.
"Do you know the history of insurance?"
Sadly, no...the extent of my knowledge (and interest) is that Ben Franklin started an insurance company.
#
"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."
I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.
'Big bucks' is not a byproduct but is the sought after goal.
I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s).
Companies that operate on that principle are some of the most unproductive companies in this country. They believe the entire purpose of that company is to enrich the central committee - top management.
How ironic. That is also called communism. When socialism breaks down, the Central Committee of the Communist Party is only interested in their wealth and power.
henry quirk has just endorsed communism. Go figure.
The purpose of every company is its product. Profits are only a reward for successfully doing its purpose. That has always been fundamental to this America economy.
Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).
#
"sharing the risk was the original purpose of insurance. The big bucks are the byproduct of that development."
I must disagree. The original (and current) purpose of insurance (in a free, or somewhat free, market) is to make money for the company owner(s). Providing a mechanism for 'sharing the risk' is the means by which that money is made.
.
depends what you mean by 'original'
I work for a 300 year old insurance company that began life as a fire insurance provider - the chap who started the company was inspired to start the venture by living through the great fire of London in which thousands of people lost everything they owned.
The theory was this: for the very wealthy it was possible to rebuild and recover (partly because much of their wealth was held in banks) while the artisan and newly emerging middle classes could be completely wiped out by a single unforeseen event.
And this basic principle is still true - if you are wealthy and your house burns down you have options to rebuild. If you are not wealthy (and most of us are not) then insurance stands in the place of wealth when disaster strikes.
Sharing the risk is not a byproduct of the means to profit - it goes hand in hand. It is the means of making profit - and the means of making profit allows for the sharing of risk. It is (when not entirely corrupt - see health insurance where no single payer scheme exists) a social good. It allows people to take risks they might not otherwise take (spending on goods rather than saving every spare penny to set against the possibility of disaster) - it allows banks to take risks on people (mortgages) and people to take risks on business ventures (liability insurance) it allows smaller landlords to offer homes (rent cover schemes) and a host of other stuff.
The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives.
Nope. The purpose of every company is profit. Product or service is the means to profit. This is the basis of free enterprise (which I endorse and you despise).
GM wanted profits. So their products suck. They even kept making V-8 engines. As a result, only top management was reaping massive profits. Since those were the only profits that mattered.
GE did everything to maximize profits. Therefore GE product continue to lose markets. Siemens literaly gorges on GE's diminishing markets. No problem. A Central Committee (top management) is still reaping big bonuses.
Companies that worry about their products are this nation's benchmark industries. Intel ignores profits. Intel's success is based in their product - Moore's law. Intel literally risked the entire company many years ago because their next generation processors would not meet Moore's law. Their risky commitment worked. So Intel processors were cooler. AMD (that wanted to make profits) was losing money and market.
When a company wants profits, then short term profits are followed by massive losses. And the central committee of the communist party (top management) pads their bonuses. This nation's lesser productive companies are also noteworthy for highest paid corporate executives. Meanwhile, companies that innovate - make better products - then have massive profits.
Reality requires many paragraphs. And does not include any "Donald Trump" style insults. So an extremists (ie henry quirk) cannot grasp it.
Only an extremists would insist what was first told by the 'central committee of the communist party' must be the truth. A soundbyte describes this: brainwashing.
The purpose of every company - even non-profit ones - is always about its product.
That's certainly true of firearms manufacturers. Their purpose has always been to make a good product.
Their purpose has always been to make a good product.
And product numbers prove it:
It's great that the government supports companies that make good product.
The government should have more control over parents and what they produce.
"(The purpose of) firearms manufacturers...has always been to make a good product."
And why did E.R. Amantino strive to make a good coach gun?
Cuz, wisely, they understood: a consistently good product encourages repeat and new customers (more money [profit]).
Some gunmakers (there were, and are, are a few) make crappy products and literally pay the price (eventually) for being cavalier or cynical with the customers.
Simply: excellent products or services maintain and increase profit; a degraded quality in products or services threatens profit.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is...
...lyin' through his teeth...
...or...
...is terminally ignorant.
#
"The notion that companies exist for one sole purpose is as untenable as the notion that people generally act on single motives."
People are hellishly complex thngs...the instrument that is free enterprise is not.
Say it with me: profit...profit...profit...profit...
"Simply: excellent products or services maintain and increase profit; a degraded quality in products or services threatens profit."
Companies that have had their production costs go up have been faced with passing those costs on to customers and pricing themselves out of business; or, downgrading quality to remain competitive in price and continue making a profit. Quite likely the competition is in a similar situation and the net effect is that it doesn't change anyone's bottom line.
Manufacturers also increase profits by downgrading product quality for promotional events like Black Friday with negligible effect on their bottom line. Those consumers are just looking for the cheapest thing available and don't subscribe to brands.
"(The purpose of) firearms manufacturers...has always been to make a good product."
Anyone who didn't realize that I was being facetious either isn't here in the Cellar often enough to know better; or, they have the IQ of a chipmunk.
"Anyone who didn't realize that I was being facetious either isn't here in the Cellar often enough to know better; or, they have the IQ of a chipmunk."
Or mebbe such a person was just using a (rearranged) post by another as a means to make, reiterate, or further a point.
That is: I was talkin' at tw, not takin' a swipe at you.
*shrug*
Thank you for your kind reply. When people are quoted and a narrative follows, it's easy to think the narrative is responding to the person quoted. I try to avoid giving that perception by using ^this^, ^whs^, "and furthermore" ... etc. Sorry I didn't realize who it was directed at.
I wasn't clear, my error, apologies... :thumbsup:
I'm guessing Mexico blows up the graph.
I wonder how that would compare to murder rates by any means?
We are a murderous bunch.
My stepson was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital last night after revealing to ER staff his detailed plan to shoot up his high school. So, you know. Fun times.
(I'm sure y'all know who this is, but medical confidentiality and all that.)
I'm fucking tired.
ouch. I won't be sending Thoughts and Prayers your way, but I will be thinking about you. Is it any coincidence that Thoughts and Prayers abbreviates to TP?
I've just figured out Trump must be into homeopathy, so that's why he thinks the solution to dozens of deaths by assault rifle is to give a teacher in each school a handgun.
I've just figured out Trump must be into homeopathy, so that's why he thinks the solution to dozens of deaths by assault rifle is to give a teacher in each school a handgun.
Nah- if he was into homeopathy he'd let the teachers hold the guns for five minutes, then take them away and let the memory of the gun protect them.
I've just figured out Trump must be into homeopathy, so that's why he thinks the solution to dozens of deaths by assault rifle is to give a teacher in each school a handgun.
He said he would run into that school building even without a gun. He said. But he didn't. And he won't. He just will not solve our problems.
[YOUTUBE]GNHDtN4lPE8?start=1286[/YOUTUBE]
Bring tissues.
"The President Sang Amazing Grace"
by Joan Baez
A young man came to a house of prayer
They did not ask what brought him there
He was not friend, he was not kin
But they opened the door and let him in
And for an hour the stranger stayed
He sat with them and seemed to pray
But then the young man drew a gun
And killed nine people, old and young
In Charleston in the month of June
The mourners gathered in a room
The President came to speak some words
And the cameras rolled and the nation heard
But no words could say what must be said
For all the living and the dead
So on that day and in that place
The President sang Amazing Grace
The President sang Amazing Grace
We argued where to lay the blame
On one man's hate or our nation's shame
Some sickness of the mind or soul
And how the wounds might be made whole
But no words could say what must be said
For all the living and the dead
So on that day and in that place
The President sang Amazing Grace
My President sang Amazing Grace
My stepson was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital last night after revealing to ER staff his detailed plan to shoot up his high school. So, you know. Fun times.
(I'm sure y'all know who this is, but medical confidentiality and all that.)
I'm fucking tired.
I am gobsmacked.
Perhaps that accounts for my inability to place you. Or, more likely, you overestimated my capacity. You do seem to give me credit for knowing you, so I'll rest on that.
W.T.F.F.
I hope everything turns out ok. jfc.
ouch. I won't be sending Thoughts and Prayers your way, but I will be thinking about you.
Thanks. If you could make a few paeans to the sleep fairy, that would help.
I am gobsmacked.
Perhaps that accounts for my inability to place you. Or, more likely, you overestimated my capacity. You do seem to give me credit for knowing you, so I'll rest on that.
W.T.F.F.
I hope everything turns out ok. jfc.
Perhaps you're unable to place me because you can't possibly imagine that this sort of thing happens to people you know very well and consider to be good, even excellent parents? It's a straight-up mental health case, of course. He had absolutely no access to weapons, and did indeed make a cry for help. But the obsessions and sociopathic thoughts had apparently been fomenting for years, and even amidst sobs in the ER he openly prided himself on how well he'd hidden his inner monologue from everyone. We're very, very proud of him for doing the right thing and reaching out, but at the same time I don't think he really understands what he's put in motion. I'm not entirely sure he ever gets to go back to school, though as far as they know right now he's just taking a few sick days. Given his admitted ability to manipulate adults with ease, I don't know that appearing stable will be enough to let him out. What I do know is that his mother is freaking the fuck out, and he's refusing to see her, and I think he intends to request to come live with us instead when he does get out. Which will be a hard call to make, given the other children in the house. Very hard to imagine a good outcome from all this.
That's a really tough road to be on. Good for him to come clean, but I wonder if he will regret it and learn to keep his mouth shut and let the demons run around in his head unchecked.
My impulse would be to circle the wagons and not let him in, but he's one of the ones who should be on the inside of the wagon circle, not the outside. What an awful choice to have to make.
I don't know enough about mental illnesses to know how well his can be treated and if he can be made "safe" to be around the rest of the family.
Nurse Ratched would have kicked his ass.
Let's put armed vets in every school in America.
Then who would be left to initiate unjustified wars to lower American living standards?
Then who would be left to initiate unjustified wars to lower American living standards?
That's the job of politicians.
*I watched one of my daughter's school mates take his oath recently. I don't blame the soldier for the terrible political decisions. I do wonder about the decision to serve in our current climate.
Might be the lack of other employment opportunities, or lack of resources for further education. Wanting a piece of that $600,000,000,000 military budget?
Very much like Bonnie and Clyde, that's where the money is. Although defense contracting is where the real money is...
A Dutch pistol (with Google translations).
What, you never heard of the Sex Pistols? :p:
At last, a cheap solution, only $5 per student.
You guys been following this serial bomber story in Austin? They caught the guy early this morning (he blew himself up when he realized that apprehension was imminent.) We'll find out when they release his identity, but I predict that he will have been 1.) a white supremacist, and 2.) specifically using bombs because the dumb argument always is that if we take away the guns, they'll just use bombs.
Also, he was staying in a motel just 1.2 miles from my kids' school.
I didn't see that they caught him. That's awesome!
Had it gone on long enough to impact your life with fear and worry? The DC sniper back in the day did that to us.
I wasn't personally worried in the beginning, because he seemed to be targeting politically-prominent black families. (Angry, of course, and concerned for others, but not nervous for my own home.) Then the most recent bombing was a trip wire across a sidewalk near a school, placed Sunday night--it was triggered by passing late-night cyclists, but in all likelihood was meant for kids first thing Monday morning. That got to me.
Currently only known is his name, 23 years old, and home schooled. A first indication of someone without the necessary outside contacts so as to not become an extremist. Curious will be if that applies here.
When cornered, he (apparently) committed suicide. Just like suicide bombers in other countries that only learn what the dictatorial powers have order them to believe.
Overlooked is the school shooting of the week. This time in Maryland.
Lifelong homeschooling can stunt you socially and give you poor self-awareness, but it's usually along the lines of thinking you're hilarious because Mom always laughs at your jokes and no peer ever told you to shut up. It doesn't do this. If this kid was homeschooled, it was likely because the public school system couldn't/wouldn't deal with him. I know tons of kids whose parents had to become involuntary homeschool teachers.
The Austin American-Statesman newspaper reports that he was homeschooled by his mother during his high school years. His parent's home is now being searched by authorities, according to the newspaper.
"I officially graduated Mark from High School," his mother wrote on Facebook in a 2013 post showing her son.
"He's thinking of taking some time to figure out what he wants to do...maybe a [religious] mission trip," his mother wrote.
Followed by this:
US media have uncovered a 2012 blog which was written under the suspect's name and appeared to be for a university course that he attended.
In the blog called "Defining my Stance", he purportedly describes beliefs that "gay marriage should be illegal", opposition to abortion and why the sex offender registry should be eliminated.
I think we can start to connect a few dots here.
The other reason for homeschooling is to be able to prevent one's child from being exposed to competing ideologies or information that runs counter to an extreme religious position.
Absolutely, and maybe that's the case here. But those folks also don't generally become religious at the moment their kid hits 9th grade. By that time, he would have already had multiple exposures to both evolution and sex ed.
It's possible that he went to a K-8 Christian school, though, and then had to figure out what to do next. There aren't nearly as many religious high school options around here as there are for the lower grades.
Parents teach their children, directly or indirectly, morality. Their morality, nobody else's.
Some think eating meat is immoral, some don't. Some think abortion is immoral, some don't. Some think racism and sexism are immoral, some don't. So you can't count on morality to thwart anyone's actions
Another lost boy, whatever the reason.
Another lost boy, whatever the reason.
The most important part of a story about a car crash - why it happened.
Same here. The largest reason this story is significant - we need know what that reason is.
Oh, I don't disagree.
But we also need to know why this keeps happening. At an individual level there is a reason - but there is also a meta reason for why young people (mainly boys) are doing this.
Because the girls keep saying no, and the boy's hormones back up. :blush:
Malcolm Gladwell made a very compelling argument about the root cause (in a nutshell, culture is contagious and social trends can go subconsciously viral) in his book "Tipping Point." Very much worth the read, as most of his stuff is.
At an individual level there is a reason - but there is also a meta reason for why young people (mainly boys) are doing this.
We would be decades farther into understanding had research into forensic psychology not been openly banned by laws desired and promoted by the NRA.
Only subjective conclusions from observation are apparent. These actions are common with people inspired by hate (ie Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, Donald Trump), educated in isolated environments where parents believe the world to be evil (also called racism, antisemitism, inspired by introverted news sources - propaganda, and contempt for what make science so useful - a hypothesis confirmed by experimental evidence and controlled experimentation).
What inspired Timothy McVeigh? What inspired so many Americans to so hate the American soldier as to believe Saddam had WMDs? Probably the same reason why most knew smoking cigarettes increases health. And why immigrants (legal and illegal) are evil. But again, we can only make conclusions from observation.
These latest bombings are only a worse case example of forensic psychology that has been obstructed due to emotions even inspired and aggravated by the NRA.
We know how Goebbels so easily promoted hate. We know from Philip Zimbardo's famous Stanford prison and torture experiments that so many adults are so easily manipulated and therefore will respond like children.
We also know pedophilia and other anti-social behavior has been created by brain tumors - and cured by removing those tumors.
So much more research is necessary. But extremists have subverted such research using the same emotional denials that also deny man made global warming.
So much to learn. So many just don't want to learn. So many so hate themselves as to not criticize the local gossip (ie 5PM news, tabloid newspapers) for not reporting why every car crash happened - so that we actually learn something.
Therein lies the underlying reasons and where a solution begins.
Sudden crazy thought: most school shooter's worst fear would be that the classmates became more famous than he did from the event.
So: have the Parkland teens inadvertently found a cure?
Either that or another reason to do it.
So: have the Parkland teens inadvertently found a cure?
The NRA shifted tactics. They got guns into YouTube. To make it more interesting, this time it is a girl. They know how to keep our attention.
The NRA is the most potent human rights organization on the face of the Earth.
Briefly, thus: you have those rights, human, civil, or however characterized, that despite any degree of force, fraud, injustice or propaganda militated against them, you yourself can enforce. With the whole of the people having enforcement's wherewithal, the individual need not often do very much very often to enforce his liberties, which I am assuming are as necessary to the individual as oxygen. Three hundred million pairs of hands make light work. That's also about the number of guns in the US alone. It may barely be enough for the need.
Yet, there are those who would remove the means of enforcement from our hands, tutting and telling us we shouldn't be trusted to look after our own liberties, or resist crime, or follow the adult responsibility inhering in keeping lethal force under our personal control. They adduce all manner of excuses and rationalizations -- but the point is these people are tyrannical. It is worthwhile to stop them and stop them hard.
Some nondemocratic persons will squall in distaste at the prospect -- but they're actuated by a notion that only a state, or in autocratic wacko extremism, a ruler, an El Lider, has a right to act. They seem uncomprehending of the fact that a State strictly speaking does not have rights, but interests. Rights are really for persons.
The NRA, the GOA, the JPFO all understand how rights are gotten, and how you retain rights -- despite having a fraction of the youth, misled through their inexperience, marching against human rights in these days. They've had that in other nations that ground human rights to powder in times past; you can call up the list of those names and years in your own mind. Trying to "stand up to" a human rights lobby is going to land you in monstrous trouble, and in theory can get you prosecuted for conspiring to deny others their civil rights under the appropriate Federal law. As more than a few Democratic good ole boys got, there where old times are not forgotten, look away.
Nope. The NRA now represents force against reason.
No discussion of it here; so have we become used to or immune to vehicle attacks?
It's looking like it, unfortunately. The last time I was in a crowd, I found myself thinking about how I was vulnerable to a vehicle attack and powerless to do anything about it if something happened.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-van-attack-driver-profile-alek-minassian-1.4632435
[A post the killer might have sent] referred to the "Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger." Rodger was the 22-year-old California man responsible for a deadly rampage in Isla Vista, Calif., that left six people dead and a dozen more injured.
In a video posted ahead of that 2014 attack, Rodger raged about a number of women turning down his advances, rendering men like him "incels," a term used by some groups to mean "involuntarily celibate."
Bluff said Minassian didn't seem to have a core group of friends and remembers him being mostly "sort of in the background" rather than at the centre of a social group.
"I remember seeing him probably just walking down the halls, usually by himself, or in the cafeteria by himself," he said. "My memory is not perfect, but certainly, it would not be, I don't think, a misstatement to say that he wasn't overly social.
Cellphone video posted to social media on Monday afternoon shows a man stepping out of a white van with a damaged front end that is stopped on the sidewalk. He steps into the line of fire a police officer who has his weapon drawn and can be heard yelling, "Kill me" and gesturing at the officer to shoot him."
The Toronto driver is clearly one of the "rage against being" types of killers, ala Dana's JBP video. Hatred for
being itself and a desire to take revenge for the outrage at it.
Briefly, thus: you have those rights, human, civil, or however characterized, that despite any degree of force, fraud, injustice or propaganda militated against them, you yourself can enforce.
Briefly, bullshit.
You and I have rights, irrespective of how well-strapped we are, not, *emphatically not* because either of us is armed. We enjoy those rights because of our shared respect for our rule of law.
Having a gun does not grant you any rights, it doesn't even protect your rights. Only that shared respect for law protects you and your rights. When you lose those rights, when they've been stolen from you by violence, the gun hasn't saved you, and if that violence came from the muzzle of a gun, it was the lack of respect for the rule of law that created the opening through which they were lost.
No amount of firepower "you yourself" can muster can "enforce" your rights. Somewhere, someone has a bigger gun and smaller scruples. Where is your puny <strike>gun</strike> god now? Your rights, and mine, are like the right of way at stop sign. You can't seize the right of way, you can only have it yielded to you. If you assert and I assert, only conflict results. I suppose this is where you draw and fire; win! Unless I draw first.
Maybe you really don't understand that such a dispute over rights is solvable, only solvable by laws. If so, hit the books, you have a lot of catching up to do. If you're really just pretending, then your willful ignorance is the problem you need to address first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/magazine/gun-culture-is-my-culture-and-i-fear-for-what-it-has-become.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGun%20Control&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection
This is a good read.
Excellent, Griff!!
I remember getting to the speedshop where I worked the counter after my day job. a wall to the right hid a half door where I'd turn to get behind the counter. Where I got there a black man in camos shoved a 1911 in my belly and growled.
It only took a few seconds to realize he was a friend, who worked for the Post Office, a DI in the Army Reserve, and was fucking with me. But those few seconds were a long long long time.
What bothers me now is the antigun crowd has become just as rabid as the hard core gun nuts. They've been recruited from the city kids who don't know guns from shinola. There is no reasonable discourse, just fer me or agin me on both sides.
No discussion of it here; so have we become used to or immune to vehicle attacks?
What bothers me now is the antigun crowd has become just as rabid as the hard core gun nuts. They've been recruited from the city kids who don't know guns from shinola. There is no reasonable discourse, just fer me or agin me on both sides.
If gun control people were as rabid as the NRA, quite a few gun control laws would be passed easily. There are plenty of gun control laws that are quite popular, but there are few single-issue (to use your term ,"rabid") gun control voters.
I think the antis are just as rabid, but not one issue.
If you're not willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it, you're not as rabid.
Seems that there could be equal; but, opposite rabidities on one issue independent of other issues and regardless of whether or not other issues exist.
YMMV.
I think the antis are just as rabid, but not one issue.
Not even close. There was no need for gun laws until NRA, et al starting pushing bigger guns, big magazines, and hardware that has no purpose but to kill people. Only then the the majority finally realized how ridiculous all that gun fascination was.
If the resulting and necessary up-swell did not exist, then gun owners would be buying M79 grenade launchers and 155 millimeter howitzers. Since the NRA has only one purpose. Lobby to increase gun sales. The NRA is a lobbyist for the gun industry.
Why did the NRA get research into gun violence banned? Resulting knowledge would harm sales. Selling hype, myths, and fear further increases sales. We all need 100 round clips.
Even bump stocks were good for business - approved of by the NRA until Las Vegas happened. NRA remains on the fence for banning those. Fearing it might harm sales.
If gun control people were as rabid as the NRA, quite a few gun control laws would be passed easily.
they may have to be more rabid, on account of that thing in the founding document of the government - remember
~ but with this shitty rabid mob versus rabid mob tribalist approach I'm sure the fucking Constitution will soon be on the outs anyway. ~
No, I said gun control. Not banning all guns. There's no right enumerated in the Constitution that has no regulation. Nor should there be.
i'm sorry but the bit in the founding document says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be removed entirely"
infringed: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
Seems that there could be equal; but, opposite rabidities on one issue independent of other issues and regardless of whether or not other issues exist.
Seeing as there is no numeric scale that scientifically measures how much you care about an issue, "willing to ignore all other issues in favor of it" is, in my view, the maximum amount you can care.
bit in the founding document says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be removed entirely"
:::long, exhausted sigh:::
and what is it that shall not be infringed upon?
the right to..
to..
what was it..?
a well R E G U L A T E D militia ??
was that it?
different meaning of regulated, perhaps, mr. constitutions professor?
i'm sorry but the bit in the founding document says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be removed entirely"
infringed: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on
It also says that Congress "shall make no law" restricting the "free exercise" of religion, but that doesn't mean you can go Old Testament on somebody.
Donations by individuals to the NRA are at a 15 year high.
Thank you rabid gun control advocates. First you got The Donald elected President and now you're making the NRA more powerful than ever.
Carry on carrying on.
different meaning of regulated, perhaps, mr. constitutions professor?
Yes, the 1791 definition
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmDonations by individuals to the NRA are at a 15 year high.
I thought you were trying to support Bruce's point... Yeah, I don't dispute that the NRA has a lot of rabid followers.
Anti's undermining their own causes with their furious stage methodologies that get Trump elected and the NRA empowered meet my conception of rabid.
Weird argument. The NRA getting more rabid is proof that both sides are equally rabid.
It's hard to make out what you're trying to say when you're foaming at the mouth like that.
Who was this weeks mass murder of the week? It was not asked 20 years ago when we were less a safe due to less guns and no military caliber munitions.
Did I remember to thank you? I shall do so now for you have done more than anyone else in this community to get Donald Trump elected President and empower the NRA. Your unwavering piety and pomposity has contributed immensely to the downfall of ideas you represent and made you the quintessential enabler of opposing positions.
Thank you, thank you so very much.
Yes, the 1791 definition
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
I'm curious about this source, but
their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:
The
Meaning of "well regulated militia" section of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article in Wikipedia actually does contain some excerpts of Supreme Court deliberation on the matter.
But I'm sure the Oxford English Dictionary is a better source of legal wisdom. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Flint;1007565]I'm curious about this source, but
their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:
works for me
http://www.constitution.org/about.htm
It was just the first link I noticed that explained the 1791 definition.
Dude, it's a dictionary entry, and some random guy's blog opinion.
Wikipedia is one click away. Plenty of Supreme Court discussion regarding how to interpret the meaning. One click. I tagged the section.
"well-regulated" summary of Oxford via constitution.org: "[the] property of something being in proper working order"
then per Wikipedia: The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[169] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
Proper training, so as for a group to be in proper working order. These definitions are roughly equivalent. I could have used either one.
Cos they're both different from your exasperated sigh R E G U L A T E D definition, am I correct?
No, that definition is fine.
As far as I know, that is all anyone is asking for.
The exasperated sigh is: when you ask for the imposition of proper discipline and training, there is a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump to "the government / liberal media is going to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY" --so, as a compromise, we agree to do nothing. And we quibble over dictionary definitions that we don't disagree on.
Your unwavering piety and pomposity has contributed immensely to the downfall of ideas you represent and made you the quintessential enabler of opposing positions.
Extremists will always resort to personal insults. How many hours did you spend with your thesaurus?
Instead, learn what antinarcissism is. Donald Trump is so much like you.
Or you could answer the question. What is the mass shooting for this week? That would be an adult reply.
You got the reply you bargained for. If you begin to function WNL, you might get the replies you ask for. Otherwise, learn to accept that you'll always be on the losing side.
You got the reply you bargained for.
More cheapshots from one who is best known here for attacking others with insults.
You have no currency here. You're on the losing side of every issue you discuss. You oppose Trump; but, Trump becomes President. You oppose the NRA; but, the NRA is thriving. Who's going to place stock in a losing proposition? These are the facts. The only thing left to discuss is you and why tw is always losing when even someone like Charlie Sheen is winning!
UT, you incorrectly assumed that I would disagree with your definition. I don't. By all means let's further the conversation with a snarky GIF you fucking pompous dickbag.
Extremists will always resort to personal insults.
I thought you were an extremist.
Since undertoad has Tapped Out, can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and compare that to gun control Advocates initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training, and tell me which one of these two groups is using the proper 1791 definition of the term well regulated??
I'll leave you to ponder whether the definition of imposition describes a voluntary action with no accountability mechanism.
[QUOTE=Flint;1007604]...can someone point me to the NRAs initiatives to implement the imposition of proper discipline and training... [QUOTE]
Get the fuck outta here. :rolleyes:
And you assumed I was a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump...
I am fine with gun control. Honestly.
If you go back in the thread, I was pointing out that, if it's harder for one side to make progress on this movement, it's not the rabidity, it's the Constitution.
That was our topic. That was "the conversation" we were furthering. But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with. Not me, but a caricature opponent.
Good luck with all that. Don't pretend it's real conversation. Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.
We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.
Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.
A true sportsman fires once, takes the gun off his shoulder, puts it back up, and then fires again. If you can't do that and hit the target every time, then a sportsman needs practice; must do that many more times.
Whatever you're playing at, it's not conversation.
Not clear which 'you' is discussed.
Meanwhile where was this week's mass killing?
You're killing us with your ignorance of what constitutes a true sportsman.
Shouldering a firearm, firing, lowering the firearm and repeating the procedure may not allow for a quick enough follow-up shot if necessary. Only a complete ignoramus expects one shot to work every time with real world variables. The method described; however, can still be done with a semi-automatic. A true sportsman does practice. Practice often costs money in range time. Sportsmen don't want to spend that time at the range they're paying for reloading. They don't need to practice reloading. They're there to practice shooting and time is money. They also know that shot placement is more important than caliber and that NATO rounds are economical fodder for practice.
Tw, you're cranky-stupid again, go take a nap.
And you assumed I was a ...
No. No, I didn't. I said those people exist and cause difficulty.
Go back and read it, you're wrong. Twice in this thread you've made wildly wrong assumptions *that you're so pompously certain are correct*
You have an objectivity problem.
But you made it into the argument you wanted to have, with the opponent you wanted to pick a fight with.
OK fine. So your point to me about rabidity and gun control is what. What's your point, out of all the posts you've made.
Why don't you tell me, buddy? Wait, you already did. You packaged the answer right there inside the question. What's my point about the thing that you just told me is what I'm talking about? Masturbator.
Alrighty. Well you win, I'm out.
Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.
No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people. A wounded enemy takes one or two, sometimes more, enemy out of the battle to tend him/her.
NATO rounds are too small for most game hunting, only good for practice.
No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people.
NATO rounds will even penetrate light armour. A problem for amphibious armour used by the Marines.
NATO rounds will penetrate cars. And two LA bank robbers demonstrated when shooting through cars to hit so many policemen.
NATO rounds will blow through game doing massive damage. Hunters use smaller caliber munitions - not NATO rounds.
No civilian needs guns that fire military munitions - NATO rounds. Those exist only to kill people. Not wound them. Kill them.
Where was this week's mass shootings?
The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.
ut, which NATO round, the 5.56mm NATO round fired from the same rifle as the .223?
I agree, terribly dangerous, civilians should stick to the old safe 30:06, or maybe 45:70. :lol2:
Trying to demonize the use of NATO spec. ammo is a fools errand, sensationalism used by whacko leftist extremists to delude an uneducated audience.
Military ammo is not designed to be more lethal than its civilian counterparts. NATO ammo actually makes compromises in lethality to effect a reduction in maiming (less fragmentation), make for greater portability (lighter weight) and easier marksmanship training of soldiers (less recoil). It's loaded to higher pressures to increase reliability in cycling firearm mechanisms under adverse conditions, not to be more lethal. Many civilian hunting rounds are potentially more lethal (all else being equal) than NATO rounds which can actually be more humane.
There are specialty rounds like armor piercing bullets designed to defeat body armor (bullet proof vests). Soldiers may find that their enemy is wearing body armor. Civilian criminals have also worn body armor during the commission of crimes. Hunters may find that those bullets better negotiate intermediate obstacles like leaves on branches with less deviation from their target. These are not; however, magic bullets and can be less lethal in their target because they don't expand on impact. They just give the bullet a better chance of reaching the target. Marksmanship is more important. This has all been well documented for decades. Only a neophyte wouldn't know this.
NATO ammunition and the firearms chambered for it could be the more humane choice for those who achieve the necessary skill in marksmanship and that skill is transferable between military, police, and civilian walks of life.
The .223 Remington round is the same as 5.56mm NATO round.
Minor difference exist. But the bottom line remains. Its purpose is to kill people. Even the .223 was designed for that purpose.
These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.
So what was the massacre of the week?
That's a lie evidenced by the fact that you can't get 2/3 of the eligible vote to change the Constitution to accommodate your delusion. You still believe the right to own these things requires further justification. It doesn't. All you've succeeded in doing is demonstrating that you're incapable of understanding their place in society and how changes in American society works. You're still that same old developmentally impaired misfit.
These are not rifles for sportsman. These are for the thrill of killing people - in reality or just to pretend on a rifle range. Neither reasons justifies these guns - and the so many who do kill because these completely unnecessary weapons inspire it.
I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. It is a common tactic used when control advocates use sloppy terminology like "assault rifle". My rifle shoots a larger round than the AR-15. It is meant to kill large game with one round. The heavy kick is a reminder of the seriousness of what I'm engaged in. Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.
I would suggest that if you are going to have these arguments learn basic facts so the other side doesn't derail your arguments. ...
Griff, his eyes open.
Allow me to demonstrate how important this is:
[Rhetorical] What is the purpose of military small arms and ammunition?
[Paraphrasing] XoB says it's to wound and thereby further burden the opposition with caring for the wounded.
[Paraphrasing] Tw says it's only to kill.
The purpose of military small arms and ammunition is to incapacitate, to render someone who was a combatant a noncombatant, whether they live or die is secondary. This is evidenced by the Laws of Land Warfare.
If you shoot and wound an opponent; but, they continue hostilities, you can legally continue to shoot them until they cease hostilities even if it kills them. Wounding is not the primary objective.
If you shoot and wound an opponent who then ceases hostilities, you cannot legally continue to shoot them until you have killed them. Killing is not the primary objective.
Military small arms and ammunition are designed around incapacitation in adherence with the Laws of Land Warfare and reflected in their tradeoffs in lethality for other considerations (e.g. non-maiming ammunition).
There's been many a soldier who's wished that their small arms were designed only to kill; but, that's not the way it is in reality.
There are rare exceptions for elite military units that have narrowly defined missions which require the assured instant incapacitation that killing an opponent provides. They use specialized firearms and ammunition.
US policy and the international agreements to which we're signatory prohibit designing military small arms and ammunition only for killing; unless, there's a consensus that a specific situation falls outside the parameters of conventional warfare.
Claims that military small arms and ammunition are designed only for killing are categorically discredited; but, that doesn't stop the ignorant from making those claims nor does it stop whacko leftist extremist propagandists from preying on the ignorant who can't be bothered to learn facts.
As Griff said, learn basic facts. It will help keep those like tw from preying on you for their own self aggrandizement.
Subscibed.
Also, good luck.
I don't think there's much chance of reasoning with this guy.
Learn about the weapons and focus on what you (and many of us) believe makes them inappropriate for civilian use like semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and ammunition appropriate for war and targets but not for big game hunting.
So you also believe military armaments need not be in civilian hands. For the same reason grenade launchers and 155 mm howitzer also are not needed. IOW we are saying a same thing.
Military weapons are designed to kill people - despite those silly denials. Killing is their purpose. Those large caliber rounds fired from large magazines on semi and fully automatic weapons are not useful (ie have no purpose in hunting). Those are only widely available because the NRA's purpose is to increase industry profits.
What was this week's mass murder?
I don't need no stink'in airline ticket. I have an AR-15. Next stop: Cuba.
Irrelevant, the Constitution doesn't limit the right to bear arms to hunting purposes; or, to self defense for that matter. Nor does it restrict arms to use for a singular purpose. Many have done Close Quarters Battle with carbines. A wide variety of ammunition is available that makes rifles and especially carbines acceptable in many different self protection situations. This has been demonstrated by the US Army issuing the M4 carbine as a standard personal weapon which is used in CQB. Even a carbine converted pistol is treated as a standard rifle under Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
The developmentally impaired tw still chooses to remain ignorant by refusing to get facts. He's not well grounded in reality and it seems he suffers from barrel length envy.
Tw is so ignorant that in a discussion about 223 Remington/5.56mm NATO ammunition he says "Those large caliber rounds" when that ammunition is small caliber. It's just lie after lie ... ad infinitum with tw.
Pathetic are those debarred from owning firearms who try to take them away from everyone else because they can't be trusted with firearms themselves.
There is too many people who would be shocked at this picture of a mere lad with an arsenal of killing machines.
The boy has poor trigger discipline however.
That's Timmy. Lassie had gotten old and he was getting ready to put her down; but, he knew she wouldn't go easily.
Yeah, he told that bitch to go get help and she went to a psychiatrist.
Trump administration says to make schools safe, more guns are needed.
But to keep Vice President Pence safe, guns are prohibited.
Which position is more plausible?
They're both plausible. Security specialists do a front end analysis looking at how many principals (people to be protected) there are, the threat level against them, and the efficiency of the screening process for armed personnel at the venue. Some situations may benefit from more armed personnel, others less. The nature of the threat against controversial individual celebrities at a large venue is generally better served with less since the security they bring with them is sufficient and too many cooks spoil the pot. OTOH, when are many principals to be protected, who don't bring their own security, in a small venue where the screening process can be more efficient, more armed personnel may be of benefit. A front end analysis needs to be done for each situation. There's no one size fits all.
Some have more compact frames...
School superintendent Dr Leigh Wall said in a statement: "We experienced an unthinkable tragedy at our high school this morning."
.... But it's not UNTHINKABLE because IT KEEPS FUCKING HAPPENING
(from BBC article)
Ya know, maybe we should control the ammo not the guns?
Seems like this is another thing that is everywhere but everyone thinks won't happen to them. Like teenage pregnancy. But controlling the ammo (via condoms and the pill) has been proven effective there whereas trying to stop them having sex was not, so.... ???
That's been tried, on and off, for a couple decades now. Everything from banning its manufacture to taxing it out of the reach of most people. The courts have decided that it's protected to the same extent as the firearms. The same goes for going after any other components that would make the firearms unserviceable.
maybe it's time to try again. or not. perhaps we won't need to worry about teenage pregnancy if they're getting shot first :(
Maybe it's time to take away parental rights and make children wards of the State. That way they can be segregated and locked down so they don't get pregnant or shot.
People have the option of doing it the American way and changing the Constitution. It's been changed before; but, I guess they don't think their kids are worth the effort. After all, it's only other people's kids that will have these problems; so, why go through all that trouble. If the kids' own parents won't do what it takes, why should anyone else jump on some other bandwagon with them?
bullet-proof shrink-wrap?
Soft body armor (bullet proof vest) works by dispersing the energy of sudden impacts. The lighter ones, with lower level ratings, which are comfortable enough for all day wear can be defeated by slower moving projectiles like certain tips on arrows fired from a bow. They can also be penetrated by knife blades of proper design by working the blade through them. Kinda like this:
[YOUTUBE]KYUolurihOQ?start=54[/YOUTUBE]
maybe it's time to try again.
Putting a big sexy gun with large ammo in his hands changes his mindset. Suddenly he is entitled. People kill people once inspired by the power and righteousness that an assault weapon creates.
Restrict those completely unnecessary weapons to the fewer who are responsible and massacre rates go down. But that means the so many who are now so 'entitled' must first admit why those big guns so make them feel better.
So this is the school shooting of the week. The 'entitled' get angry when we discuss this new reality.
What was last weeks 'shooting of the week'?
[YOUTUBE]8tPprtkWZzA[/YOUTUBE]
Meanwhile, a perspective from the other side:
If he were addicted to something, lots of places would take him. If we physically abused him, lots of places would take him. If he were 18, lots of places would take him. As it is, no one wants a middle class, clean cut, straight-A student who hears voices and thinks people are secretly filled with smoke and openly states his plans to mass murder them. It would be extremely easy for this child to purchase an automatic weapon out of the back of someone's car right now, and completely legal--DESPITE all the diagnoses--for him to purchase one from a store on his 18th birthday.
If you don't acknowledge that the NRA has helped make the above situation possible, you're as fucked in the head as he is. Normal, law-abiding citizens want to believe that surely, surely the law wouldn't allow what I'm describing. It does, and will, until you vote every one of the NRA-funded politicians out.
The NRA has become a mirror organization. It wasn't always that way; but, leftist extremists forced it to change. What I have personally seen in some municipalities is an extreme left asking for just reasonable concessions; but, only as a prelude to more concessions and then even more concessions until all privately owned firearms are gone. That extreme faction inserted itself into every compromise reached by typical leftists, moderates, and right leaning people of reason. When the extreme left inserted itself into every situation where an inch was given and tried to take a mile, the typical left did nothing to try to preserve the compromises.
Moderates and right leaning people had their backs forced up against a wall of indifference. They learned not to give an inch and developed their own extreme right organization to fight fire with fire. Those who stood by and did nothing to preserve the earlier compromises, while the extreme left became aggressive through deceptive practices, are now caught up in the back burning. Their indifference backfired on them.
No one deserves the atrocities that are happening; but, they got what they bargained for. The victims are the collateral damage. Of course the NRA is part of the status quo. It wouldn't exist in its present form though if not for the uncompromising and the apathetic who renege on their compromises the moment they think they can get away with it. Those are the low-lives who believe the end justifies the means.
The low-lives not only got what they bargained for, the got what they deserved: Trump and the NRA. If you're still pursuing this agenda by the means that brought Trump and the NRA into power when you should have been doing it the American way by changing the Constitution, you're fucked in the head and your children are paying the price for it with their lives.
I live less than half a mile from a 3,000 plus member gun club so I hear outdoor shooting practice all the time. A couple afternoons ago when I came home it sounded like the were shooting very large caliber cannons. Most unusual. :eyebrow:
Well, you know, skeet shooting with shotguns is becoming passé. Shooting drones with anti-aircraft guns is all the rage.
I live less than half a mile from a 3,000 plus member gun club so I hear outdoor shooting practice all the time. A couple afternoons ago when I came home it sounded like the were shooting very large caliber cannons. Most unusual. :eyebrow:
I guess they want howitzers for when the Democrats take the House?
That's it, that's the secret, we'll drive them into bankruptcy buying that ammo to practice! :smack:
No one deserves the atrocities that are happening; but, they got what they bargained for. The victims are the collateral damage. Of course the NRA is part of the status quo. It wouldn't exist in its present form though if not for the uncompromising and the apathetic who renege on their compromises the moment they think they can get away with it. Those are the low-lives who believe the end justifies the means.
This seems to be a common thread these days. You can't blame conservatives for behaving poorly because the "elites" disrespected them.
"Look what you made me do!" "Why do you make me hit you?"
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
That's it, that's the secret, we'll drive them into bankruptcy buying that ammo to practice! :smack:
I believe Chris Rock proposed bullet control.
Saw an interesting idea from a talking head Sunday morning. >>
If the guns used in a shooting belonged to a parent, then the parent be held equally culpable.
I bet that a lot more people would keep their guns locked in a gun safe.
I believe Chris Rock proposed bullet control.
That's been used some what successfully in some colonies, but wouldn't work here. We have enough reloading equipment in the hands of civilians to supply a sizable army with a steady supply of ammo.
No one deserves the atrocities that are happening; but, they got what they bargained for. The victims are the collateral damage. Of course the NRA is part of the status quo. It wouldn't exist in its present form though if not for the uncompromising and the apathetic who renege on their compromises the moment they think they can get away with it. Those are the low-lives who believe the end justifies the means.
This seems to be a common thread these days. You can't blame conservatives for behaving poorly because the "elites" disrespected them.
"Look what you made me do!" "Why do you make me hit you?"
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
If you're going to quote me, I'd appreciate it if you'd address what I said instead of just using me as an attention grabber for some tangent idea you have because you don't draw much of an audience on your own.
I talked about everyday people holding leftist extremist views, not "elites."
I talked about people who reneged on agreements, those who incite them to do so and those who engage in deceitful practices in matters of grave importance, not people who simply diss others.
When people are hit, they have a Constitutional right to hit back to protect themselves. To categorize that as poor behavior you'd have to demonstrate that they willfully used excessive force. That the initial aggressor simply got hurt doesn't constitute excessive force. Any innocent bystanders hurt are the responsibility of the initial aggressor who is the one that chose the venue.
You're nowhere near knowledgeable enough to grasp these concepts which is why I must point out, as I have done before, reading comprehension HM.
I've seen things like leftist extremists standing just outside the property line of a county fairgrounds, video recording the license plates of cars turning onto the fairgrounds where a sportsman's show was being held; because, firearms were also being sold there. They intended to post the images on any public media that would let them in addition to circulating them among other leftist extremist groups. That wasn't just dissing people, that was criminal conduct and they were arrested.
The underhanded practices of some leftist extremist low-lives (notice I've been saying low-lives and not "elites") may not fall to the level of criminal conduct; but, it still has consequences. Those consequences were to alienate the people who might have been able to help save school children's lives. Now we'll never know. Stupid is as stupid does.
There was a game show from about 1974 on this afternoon. They said they polled 100 people if they thought citizens should be able to arm themselves for protection in dangerous areas. They didn't say where the 100 people were polled. Hollywood Studio audience? Native Californians? Tourists? Who knows?
But the answer was 52 out of 100 felt citizens should have the right to arm themselves. Methinks that's askew for 1974. :eyebrow:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1309576&postcount=1007
Only one who famous for his profanity would take cheapshots at the Parkland students. But that is the type of person who needs an assault weapon to enlarge his penis. No profanity and no insult. That is where this need for big guns comes from. Same emotions justify attacking the victims.
This is not about a second amendment. Anyone is protected by a .22 six shooter. Nobody needs military weapons to defend himself. Otherwise we have also justified the need for 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. But a .22 that no longer inspires sexual emotions with the usual henry quick insults.
[YOUTUBE]2NfLdozfKOc[/YOUTUBE]
"Only one who famous for his profanity..."
Yeah, I'm pretty fuckin' good at cussin'.
#
"...would take cheapshots at the Parkland students."
Don't know how pointin' out the true agenda of cocksuckers like youself is a shot at the kids (who incidentally 'are' kids...they should be tended to, not catered to).
#
"But that is the type of person who needs an assault weapon to enlarge his penis."
My dick is just the right size, thank you very much, and I see you've expanded 'assault weapon' to include double-barreled shotguns (which is what a coach gun is). That's how it goes with you shits.
#
"No profanity and no insult."
Fuck you, nimrod (two birds, one sentence).
#
"That is where this need for big guns comes from."
No. Currently the 'need' for my coach gun is to shoot assholes who come lookin' to take my coach gun.
#
"Same emotions justify attacking the victims."
Yeah, I didn't attack the victims.
#
"This is not about a second amendment."
You're right about that. My gun is mine cuz 'I' say it is, not cuz of words on paper, or someone's interpretation of those words.
#
"Anyone is protected by a .22 six shooter."
Till like-minded pussies like yourself decide to classify them as 'assault weapons'.
#
"Nobody needs military weapons to defend himself."
Not your fuckin' call.
Anywho, my coach gun is not a millitary weapon, so: fuck you.
#
"Otherwise we have also justified the need for 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. But a .22 that no longer inspires sexual emotions with the usual henry quick insults."
Buddy, if I wanted a bazooka, and I could find one, and I could meet the price, then absolutely I would have a bazooka. Thing is: all I need is my nice lil coach gun, a thing even Smokin' Joe Biden approves of, so...
Fuck you, tw...fuck you hard and long...with a red, foot-long strap-on...worn by whatever fellow traveller you like.
My dick is just the right size, thank you very much, and I see you've expanded 'assault weapon' to include double-barreled shotguns (which is what a coach gun is). That's how it goes with you shits.
Fuck you, tw...fuck you hard and long...with a red, foot-long strap-on...worn by whatever fellow traveller you like.
Wait a minute... why do you need a strap-on? :lol:
Cuz I'm not fuckin' him, but one of his comrades might.
You interested in the job?
Kind of you to offer, but no thank you. ;)
I can only guess, henry quirk, that you are a liberal in disguise. Your strange and illogical arguments seemed designed to drive people away from your point of view.
Pete,
Just call me Henry.
Now, what's illogical about my arguments (which aren't really arguments but just an extended fuck you to that dumbass, tw)?
Those consequences were to alienate the people who might have been able to help save school children's lives.
That is the poor behavior I referred to. If someone might have been able to save schools children's lives, but didn't because they were just SOOOO annoyed at liberals, it's not the liberals who are the problem.
Pete,
Just call me Henry.
Now, what's illogical about my arguments (which aren't really arguments but just an extended fuck you to that dumbass, tw)?
I don't have enough free time for that. >>
Brandolini's Law AKA The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
Yeah, sure.
Wanna sell me the Golden Gate too?
#
"If someone might have been able to save schools children's lives, but didn't because they were just SOOOO annoyed at gun owners, it's not the gun owners who are the problem."
There...reads better now...reads 'true'.
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
Could you not say "shot"? Because I just got...
...
...
...
...
...
...
triggered.
I can only guess, henry quirk, that you are a liberal in disguise.
A curious and interesting take. Although the conclusion is unlikely, the reasoning does make sense.
Something that Col Hogan (Hogan's Heroes) would successfully pull off.
Fuck you, nimrod (two birds, one sentence).
Defines a fanatic NRA and White Power supporter.
"a fanatic NRA and White Power supporter."
Not an NRA member, and I'm misanthropic (an equal opportunity hater).
So: fuck you, tw.
Henry has expressed in the past he doesn't like to part with money which will not return an immediate personal desire, be it government or private organizations. Hence the smothering by trees of all stripes regardless of their differences.
We should start a weekly cellar pool for the number of kid killed each week. Since this massive increase in guns has made killing kids another sport. Its not even news anymore. And since internet gambling is now legal.
Problem is that nobody will want to put money down on zero, one, or two. Those are losing numbers.
Maybe another one for the 'profane word of the day' from Henry. Frequency means that also is not news.
Those consequences were to alienate the people who might have been able to help save school children's lives. Now we'll never know. Stupid is as stupid does.
That is the poor behavior I referred to. If someone might have been able to save schools children's lives, but didn't because they were just SOOOO annoyed at liberals, it's not the liberals who are the problem.
Obviously it wasn't "just" an annoyance. You trying to trivialize the situation because you're incapable of understanding it and have nothing significant to say is an annoyance.
Liberals tried to subvert a Constitutional right instead of changing the Constitution. That alienated other people. Liberals tried to negate a Constitutional right even though there was no guarantee it would save school children's (or anyone else's) lives and many believed it was a long shot that it would. That also alienated other people. Evidently, liberals now don't care because they're desperate to create a scapegoat for their failings to protect school children. They're doing what they've always done and going for all or nothing instead of compromising on the chance that it might save lives. They get nothing; because, that's what subversives deserve. People make poor decisions that get children killed all the time. The low-lives among them try to blame someone else. Liberals who fall into this category are the problem (they don't want you to think that; so, they've brainwashed you). Those who are weak of mind can't see it.
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
I don't have the free time you seem to have, Henry. But I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. Time to go make dinner.
Of course, a hawk is used for plastering ...
Oh!
Oh!
You just did something from Shakespeare's Hamlet!
You bastard, my handsaw was killed by a hawk in the WTC on 9/11.
Those consequences were to alienate the people who might have been able to help save school children's lives.
People make poor decisions that get children killed all the time. The low-lives among them try to blame someone else.
Indeed. For example, people who might have been able to help save school children's lives, but didn't, and blamed it on liberals for being SOOOOOO alienating.
They're doing what they've always done and going for all or nothing instead of compromising on the chance that it might save lives.
The NRA
actually is all-or-nothing, no compromise. This is apparently a behavior you find poor, as you are excoriating liberals for it. But you are blaming liberals for the NRA behaving this way.
Can you find people who want to ban all guns? Sure. Probably some of those random people who were taking pictures you mentioned. The guy on the bulletin board henry found. Probably even a few politicians. But there's no anti-NRA that liberals are in lockstep to. It is ridiculous to claim that liberals refuse compromise, when all they do on the gun front is propose compromise, and don't even go that far with anything close to unanimity. They even have to compromise between each other, before proposing the compromise to the NRA.
Yeah, no. I pity the fool who's nothing more than a contrarian. The kind of low-life who says "It is ridiculous to claim that liberals refuse compromise, when all they do on the gun front is propose compromise..." after I've already said that some of their so-called compromises are just stepping stones to a goal that is no compromise at all and most liberals are fine with that. The best you can muster is the equivalent of I know you are but what am I followed by demonstrated ignorance.
I'm happy to see your judgement isn't clouded by any knowledge on the subject. You help keep the NRA strong.
"It is ridiculous to claim that liberals refuse compromise, when all they do on the gun front is propose compromise..." after I've already said that some of their so-called compromises are just stepping stones to a goal that is no compromise at all and most liberals are fine with that.
So the fear that at some point in the future the liberals will, among themselves, agree on a nebulous "no-compromise" goal, and also have the power to enact that goal is equivalent to "liberals refuse to compromise". And justification for the NRA actually not compromising in real life.
I'm not a member of the NRA; but, I'm thinking of joining because of you.
Well, not just you. It may also be for Clodfobble's grandchildren ... so she'll have some. Liberal parents aren't doing such a good job of safeguarding their children in schools these days and there's probably oodles of liberal parents there. I think they need some outside help and I'm sure I know what's best for them.
I may need to recruit some others to join the NRA too; so, there's enough help to go around.
As the liberals and conservatives swirl, the moderates get flushed down the middle.:smack:
Naaaaw, they're the most important people in the universe ... as long as they can vote.
I know you're not joining the NRA, you don't need a card to stir shit. :haha:
Q: Why do people stir shit?
A: Because it's there.
HM
You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense.
sexobon, you have no proof, are unable to prove your "justification" that the elimination of all guns at some indefinite point in the future is a good reason to do nothing now.
"Henry has expressed in the past he doesn't like to part with money which will not return an immediate personal desire"
No. I don't like parting with my money when my money is spent poorly by others. I worked for it...the least the parasites can do when 'they' spend 'my' money is do so wisely...which they don't...ever.
So, as I can, I deprive 'them' of what's 'mine'.
#
"the smothering by trees of all stripes regardless of their differences."
Buried under a ton of oak, buried under a ton of pine: what's the difference?
Time to insult, but no time (or guts) for the follow-through.
Pussy.
Yes, I deduced that was your position. Not criticizing, everyone is entitled to their own position, just trying to help the masses understand your vehemence. :cool:
Happy,
'Liberals' offer bad compromises always as a prelude to larger, equally bad, compromises.
It's a sneaky, gutless, way of eatin' away at things one has no courage to confront honestly.
Just admit you want all guns gone...this is honest, straightforward...all involved know where they stand...the war that follows is open (instead of ths 'civil' subtle exercise in misdirection and lies).
The person whose post I linked up-thread I think is awful...but at least they aren't pretending.
HM
You're just being trolled. You probably already know this. sexobon is just trying to wind you up, heedless of the illogic of his "argument". Saying you're too dumb to understand is a weak defense.
I only respond when someone I'm responding to actually makes relevant claims. I usually delete the personal attacks or taunting when I quote someone. If there's nothing left, there's nothing to reply to.
V,
When you agree with someone, you never ask for proof, evidence, citations.
When you disagree with someone, you always demand proof, evidence, citations.
And when proof, evidence, citations are offered you neatly side-step, moving on, always moving on.
Sexobon might be trollin', but he's also right...even a casual review of what's goin' on illustrates this...so: the evidence, the proof, is on the table...all Sexobon has to do, if he likes, is comment on it...not his job to shove your face down into it (which wouldn't work anyway, cuz, as I say, you'll just side-step and move on).
Bruce,
I'm plain-spoken, simple (minded) even.
If the masses don't get me it's cuz they don't wanna...which is fine by me...I certainly get them, don't like them, will oppose them at every turn.
Could never get on Nixon's enemies list. Even Trump's is a challenge. But anyone can so easily get on henry quirk's enemies list.
Just don't use profanity. He lives for profanity. And hate. Just another reason why some need big guns - to defend from everyone.
'Liberals' offer bad compromises always as a prelude to larger, equally bad, compromises.
It's fine to worry about the next compromise when considering a current one. It's dishonest to claim that the current one doesn't exist because you're worried about the next one.
And it's disingenuous to use the dishonest claim that liberals don't compromise to justify the fact that the NRA doesn't.
Hate: yep, a gut full, for the deserving.
Profanity: fuck yeah...it's language, a tool...it has its place no matter what domesticated types like you have to say on the matter.
Big gun: just one...only need one...you ever get a hankerin' to see it up close, let me know...I'll e you my address...you can swing by...we'll see what's what.
"It's dishonest to claim that the current one doesn't exist because you're worried about the next one."
When the current offered compromise is just a step in a series of compromises designed to disarm folks (and so isn't a compromise at all), then -- no -- it's not dishonest.
#
"And it's disingenuous to use the dishonest claim that liberals don't compromise to justify the fact that the NRA doesn't."
Fuck the NRA. You think the NRA is the problem. It ain't nuthin'. Me, I'm the problem...I have a gun and won't give it up, or be hobbled in my ownership of it. End the NRA and you still have (folks like) me to deal with.
No compromises...no deals...no 'feel good' solutions.
I will not accept restrictions cuz of the bad acts of others.
When the current offered compromise is just a step in a series of compromises designed to disarm folks (and so isn't a compromise at all), then -- no -- it's not dishonest.
Wow. He was able to post without profanity.
Fuck the NRA.
Damn. I was hoping he could.
... And it's disingenuous to use the dishonest claim that liberals don't compromise to justify the fact that the NRA doesn't.
And now I'll say again for the hard of comprehending, giving an inch opens the door for leftist extremists to try to take a mile and liberals aren't even going to try to do anything about it. It's not a compromise unless both sides are doing what it takes to enforce the agreement. I've seen liberals dropping the ball on this for forty years. It's not just what they do, it's who they are: the same people who would subvert the Constitution rather than do what it takes to change it ... the low-lives.
Neither the NRA nor any other organization (e.g. political party) needs any more justification than that to put them on ignore. They got what they bargained for, their children are paying the price, and all they want to do is argue that their children's safety is someone else's responsibility. Their bellyaching is not favorably considered. Give them more Trump and NRA. If it doesn't kill them, it'll make them stronger.
We comprehend you, it's easy to comprehend--all you're saying is that "Liberals want to take your guns away." Easy. But it's not true. The "inch" consists of common sense measures that a majority of Americans want. Let's discuss these proposals in good faith.
And now I'll say again for the hard of comprehending, giving an inch opens the door for leftist extremists to try to take a mile and liberals aren't even going to try to do anything about it.
An extremist even posted that moderates define the NRA. Anyone who makes a conclusion by first learning history knows an extremist is reciting what the Central Committee of the Communist Party has ordered him to think. (Or is it the Nazi party? They also demonstrate against moderates by carrying big guns.)
NRA had a long history of promoting responsible gun ownership. "NRA support gun control for much of the 20th century, its leadership in fact lobbied for and co-authored gun control legislation." NRA was a leading advocate of gun regulations due to a massive 1930 murder rate directly traceable to more and more powerful guns. NRA was even a leading advocate for limiting gun ownership when Kennedy was shot in 1963.
That changed in 1971 when the ATF, during a house raid, shot and paralyzed Kenyon Ballew; suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. In 1975, the NRA changed from responsible gun ownership to giving more and bigger guns to everyone. Only extremists believe a lie that more guns make a safety society. This was discuss here years ago with facts and numbers. Increase in number of guns throughout history has always been followed by a massive increase in gun deaths.
A major change occurred even over a trivial issue. Issue was lead contamination on firing ranges. Lead danger was just too much for wackos who denied lead was dangerous, must be in all paints, and must never be removed from gasoline. For the same reasons those extremists today also know global warming does not exist. They were told what to believe rather than first learn facts.
Another factor was the famous "The Cincinnati Revolution". Extremists took over; NRA promoted more and bigger guns. We see today the results of that extremism even in 'the murdered students of the week'. We need a weekly lottery for the number of students killed every week. But the NRA will complain. It does not promote bigger guns with larger clips.
NRA was once a major proponent of responsible gun ownership NRA now advocates more and bigger guns in every house - even if he is a felon. Does not matter what they say; what matters is what they promote to even make guns available to felons.
NRA has successfully protected a felon's access to assault weapons. He just cannot buy them in a gun store. But can purchase on the street or in gun shows. What moderate would promote that? What Sexobon calles a moderate is a wacko extremist. But to him, that is a moderate. And everyone else must be a liberal. It clearly defines him as an extremist so right wing as to be wacko.
Facts make it clear. NRA since the late 1970s was dominated by extremists who promote soundbytes to increase the power, munitions, and numbers of guns. They have not said it yet. But their propaganda even justifies 155 mm howitzers and grenade launchers. Their rhetoric: that will somehow increase human safety and reduce crime.
A moderate can see through those lies. An extremist does not.
We comprehend you, it's easy to comprehend--all you're saying is that "Liberals want to take your guns away." Easy. But it's not true. The "inch" consists of common sense measures that a majority of Americans want. Let's discuss these proposals in good faith.
Been there, done that, the other side dropped the ball repeatedly when it came to reigning in their extreme factions while those who leaned conservative rode shotgun to keep their extreme factions in check. That can happen only so many times before it becomes self evident that liberals are interested in what the other side can do for them; but, when it comes to what they can do for the other side, not so much. Your good faith line has been used ad museum with the aforementioned results. If you want to show good faith, change the Constitution. I've been watching this dog and pony show since before you were born and that's where it's at now.
tw, calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an extremist, or a child, blows your credibility from the git go.
Then lay them out, one by one, Flint.
You do it, not tw (cuz he's a needledick and I'm done [for the moment] with his horseshit).
You, Flint, list each of these common sense proposals.
I'm pretty damn sure I know them all already, and I'm equally sure I can illustrate how each won't work and acts as a mere gateway to wider, deeper, restrictions.
Surprise me, Flint...show me I'm wrong, or stymie me (first time for everything, I suppose, and I'm way past due for a good stymie).
Tw, I bought you a gift membership in the NRA in your username. In around 10 - 11 months you may get a renewal notice at the Cellar email address in your profile contact info. Let me know when you get it and I'll pick up the tab. Don't say I never gave you anything.
tw, calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an extremist, or a child, blows your credibility from the git go.
Not to mention he said a .22 cal. six shooter is enough for anybody.
:lol2:
You can't read his writings and keep a straight face anymore.
"he said a .22 cal. six shooter is enough for anybody."
Till, as I say, he and his declare pop guns, slingshots, and hard stares to be 'assault weapons'.
#
"You can't read his writings and keep a straight face anymore."
I ain't laughin'...motherfucker gets up my nose like nuthin' else (him and all those crapsacks who wanna save folks from themselves...sanctimonious shits...righteous sparrowfarts).
Hey hey now, sparrowfarts is a pretty serious accusation. :eyebrow:
Been there, done that, the other side dropped the ball repeatedly when it came to reigning in their extreme factions while those who leaned conservative rode shotgun to keep their extreme factions in check. That can happen only so many times before it becomes self evident that liberals are interested in what the other side can do for them; but, when it comes to what they can do for the other side, not so much. Your good faith line has been used ad museum with the aforementioned results. If you want to show good faith, change the Constitution. I've been watching this dog and pony show since before you were born and that's where it's at now.
There is a whole other thread here if anybody is interested. Maybe sexobon would like to expand his theory of why we're on the cusp of wrecking the American Experiment. There is some truth in it.
tw, calling everyone who doesn't agree with you an extremist, or a child, blows your credibility from the git go.
When did I call you an extremist? Cite the example.
And yes, many adults do think like children. It was necessary to bring Hitler to power. It explains so many addicted cigarette smoker. It even explains so many who just knew Saddam had WMDs - using emotion and no facts.
They did not do that for logical (adult) reasons. They did that because the brain of a child (emotions) made that decision.
Sorry. But facts does not go away just because you do not like it. Many do not like it. And do not / cannot challenge it in an adult manner - logically. Many do not like it emotionally.
The adult who is still a child was even defined here by citing research into adolescence. It would only make angry an adult thinks like a child. Who is insulted rather than learns.
Credibility comes from honesty - and not by petting the emotions of a wild dog. There is no way around many adults who still think like children - and then voted for a man only because he attacks and insults others. He even inspires race hatred. To adults who are still children, that is leader. To an adult who is thinking logically like an adult, that is a threat. Especially if permitted access to big guns or nuclear missiles.
C'mon, Pete...I see you there...gimme your best shot.
Ok henry. I've got a few free minutes so let's see what you're willing to do.
I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules.
Honest answers to questions, no bullshit.
No personal attacks.
Keep to the point.
This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people.
Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time.
Willing to give it a go?
"I'm willing to have an open and honest discussion with you IF you are willing to abide by some rules."
Sure, but I've got a few of my own which I'll list in a bit.
#
"Honest answers to questions, no bullshit."
I don't bullshit, I'm always honest, I say fuck a lot.
#
"No personal attacks."
Act like a human being and you got no worries; ignore what I write and act like tw, then you get what you get.
#
"Keep to the point."
I always keep to the point (as I'm cussnin').
#
"This will be no internet troll fest. Just a real discussion between two people."
Works for me.
#
"Willing to live with some potentially long delays - I still don't have a lot of free time."
Yeah, well I'm only 'here' when I have the time...I've gone weeks and months without doin' the cellar...I'm only here now cuz I got time to kill...if that changes, I'll be gone again...so: we'll just have to play this by ear and hope for the best.
#
"Willing to give it a go?"
Yep.
#
My rules...
1-When it cones to guns, my essential argument/question is: as I've committed no crimes with my shotgun, why should I (or any law abider) accept restrictions or hobbling in ownership or use of my gun because of the bad acts of others?
Throwin' stats at me will get you a 'that's all well and fine but 'I' didn't do anything wrong so why must 'I' get hobbled?' Not sayin' you can't use stats; am sayin' those stats aren't gonna address my concern/question and I'm probably not gonna spend a whole lotta time on those stats.
2-Being plain-spoken (though mebbe a tiny bit idiosyncratic) in presentation, nuthin' annoys me more than to have what I post ignored, miscatagorized, or misused...this is why tw gets up my nose...he's a fuckin' liar and fuckin' distorter and fuckin' ignorant. You, Pete, don't strike me as those things. So, don't misuse me and we should get along splendidly, even if we disagree.
Summing up...
I have my own particular, peculiar, interest in the issue(s) and I always operate out of that particular, peculiar position. For example: I won't defend or condemn the NRA cuz I don't give a fuck about the NRA, so I won't be prodded or cajoled into doin' either.
Don't pretend I say one thing when you damn well know I've said another. Don't ascribe motivations to me beyond what I ascribe to myself, beyond what's apparent in my posts. In short: don't be tw.
You undestand what I'm sayin' here, or am I just repeatedly muddyin' the waters?
Sounds good. Moving this to another thread.
Background Checks.
Are they good? Are they bad? Could they be improved?
If there are issues with the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed? If there are issues with any proposed improvements to the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed?
"Background Checks"
This may be one I can't dismantle cuz I've had my gun for a long time...got it well before mandated fed checks and here, in Louisiana, there is no mandated state check.
In short: I've got mine, didn't have to jump through hoops to get mine, so fuck it.
Not a answer, I know, so let me try...
On the face of it, I got no problem with background checks. A good chunk of what I do for a living involves background checks. I suppose the nature of the check is what concerns me.
I guess the over-riding thing for me, with background checks is: is there the presuming of innocence or guilt at the start? Checking with the intent to prove the gun buyer is guilty of sumthin' is different than checking with the assumption of innocence.
In one, you'll hunt till you find sumthin' to deny the purchase; in the other you'll simply check the facts as they exist, as they're recorded.
So, background checks are fine if done narrowly (no, you don't get to root through the gun buyer's undie drawer) and with the right ethic (the presuming of innocence).
Now, the effectiveness of checks is another thing entirely.
Obviously, the wider, deeper, more draconian, the check, the more effective. If you can go through the undies drawer you just might find sumthin' awful, sumthin' that justifies denying that gun purchase. Unfortunately you also piss liberally on the gun buyer's self-ownership and privacy.
Old notion: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.
I, of course, skew toward the more liberty the better (and I'll take care of my own safety, thank you very much). So, of course, I skew toward the narrow, minimal background check, knowing full well such checks will be less effective.
Does this answer satisfy?
If background checks are use to deny people a gun just because they are stone crazy, how long before people are denied because they don't eat kosher, or wear white after Labor Day? :lol:
Pretty stupid statement, right? But it's the same reasoning I hear time and time again.
If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.
The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).
Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.
In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).
So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective.
Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there.
How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out.
"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."
Nope.
##
"Sounded to me like he's saying pursuing an end result of maximum effectiveness doesn't necessarily justify using any and all means that might get one there."
Yep.
#
"How you took that to mean he doesn't want any background checks to be effective is something for psychoanalysts to figure out."
You know what Griff's doin' as well as I do. Like tw, Griff knows what I'm sayin', doesn't like what I'm sayin', can't refute what I'm sayin' philosophically, so he willfully misinterprets what I'm sayin'.
Standard horseshit.
If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.
The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).
Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.
In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).
That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.
Griff,
You highlighted sumthin' of mine...
'I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers)'
...presumably as an evidence of this...
"So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective."
You just make my point for me.
I am presumed innocent till proven otherwise.
Proving me otherwise takes place within the confines of 'due process', meaning I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property while being investigated for crime. And I can't be violated in person, in privacy, in property because one or more think me 'odd'. This includes a background check. My skivvies drawer may contain all manner of nastiness, some perhaps sufficient to disallow my purchasing a gun, BUT you can't look there without damned good reason (which has got to be more than 'he's odd'). The bar is set HIGH and the legit background check should, can, only dig through what's a matter of public record (which itself should be largely shallow).
So: it's not that I want ineffective background checks; it's that I accept, in a free nation peopled by free men and women, our employees (should) have extraordinarly limited power over us (far less than we [should] have over them).
Now, if you support relieving folks of privacy, support violating personhood, support removing or denying property based on what someone might do, well, then you march, lockstep with idiots like tw, along that road leading to 'politburo'.
Me, I'll be walkin', in a loose, relaxed way, in the opposite direction.
As I say up-thread: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.
It would be nice if a balance could be had, but I don't think that's possible.
"change the Constitution"
Plenty who want to, on both sides of the aisle.
Dumb motherfuckers ought to leave well enough alone.
That's the way rights work. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a right, it's a privilege. If people want this right to be downgraded to a privilege, they can change the Constitution.
I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that amending the Constitution is the "Constitutional" way to go, however, that could be a more ham handed outcome where we lose a right than incremental changes with a dance between Congress and the Judiciary. We already have precedent for limitations.
Henry, what do you consider private? Is a conviction for a violent crime private? Is a history of severe mental illness private? Where do you draw the "drawers" line?
I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that amending the Constitution is the "Constitutional" way to go, however, that could be a more ham handed outcome where we lose a right than incremental changes with a dance between Congress and the Judiciary. We already have precedent for limitations.
Mexico already does that dance
via its Constitution and the right wasn't lost.
"Henry, what do you consider private?"
Anything and everything that isn't takin' money out of another's pocket, food off their table, or the shingles from the roof over their heads. In other words: If I'm not tangibly mucking around in their business, then 'my' business is none of 'their' business.
And: no, the possibility I 'might' muck around in their business tomorrow is not sufficient to justify them muckin' around in mine today.
#
"Is a conviction for a violent crime private?"
No, that is and should be a function of the public record (the trial is paid for with taxes and therefore is not strictly a private matter).
#
"Is a history of severe mental illness private?"
Yep, it's private till the afflicted stop mindin' their own business and keepin' their hands to themselves. And even then, that history should remain a private matter if the actions that got the afflicted in hot water are of the sort not demonstrably linked to their illness. Example: a glove box full of unpaid traffic tickets is not sufficient to violate patient/doctor privilege.
#
"Where do you draw the "drawers" line?"
Along the edges of my life (which, when not tangibly infringing on yours, is none of your business).
While the FBI remains reactive, Florida school districts are going proactive:
[YOUTUBE]ZDQWgypoEHk[/YOUTUBE]
PA just passed a bipartisan bill.
The laxatives must've worked.
I think they must have a bipartisan budget also flowed out.
Try not to think of it as a mass shooting, think of it as a services shooting, Jews don't go to mass.
Maybe we can use these tragedies to come together rather than fall apart.
Not likely, too many people lose their sense of humor over them.
I was going cut and paste details of the Pittsburgh shooting but reading about it is too damn depressing.
Right wing extremists (also called mental midgets) need military assault rifles. Otherwise the cops might stop them.
It took a one hour gun fight to finally stop him. Actually they did not stop him. He had enough and surrendered.
All it would have taken was one member with a concealed carry permit to stop the attacker cold. But radical left wing extremists, brainwashed by Hillary and her ilk, convinced them that only the government should be able to protect people and it would be immoral for them to protect themselves. Guess how that worked out.
The way some tell it, it even took government authorities a one hour gunfight to bore the attacker into surrendering. The people could have ended it themselves right when it began if only they hadn't been conned by Hillary and her propagandist supporters.
Oh stop, you're killing me. :lol:
BTW, four cops were wounded when it was over.
The people could have ended it themselves right when it began if only they hadn't been conned by Hillary and her propagandist supporters.
Wacko extremism is talking. You and your politics of hate (so often expressed here) justify massacres. Timothy McVeigh also had similar beliefs.
We know this. As guns increase, the number of shootings and murders increase. More guns mean more deaths and massacres. Since the most emotional children among us need those guns - so as to not be dissed.
Even armed guards in Columbine and other massacres could not avert the massacre. One parishioner with a concealed gun could have stopped five minutes of constant military assault gunfire? BTW, most were shot in the back of their head. So everyone had plenty of time to fire one shot and end it all? More bullshit encouraged by The Don.
Reality once we replace gun hyped logic with honesty. Since so many adults are only children, then more guns means more arguments settled in gunfire. He forgets lessons well proven in history. But he loves lies such as Trump's. Sexobon prefers hate promoted by Trump. And he has not denied it.
Since so many adults are still children, then a first 'hate' read on Facebook must be true. They (adults who are still children - not moderates) are why Facebook has created so many problems. So all, inspired by Trump hate on Facebook, should carry more guns.
The obvious solution here is to equip everyone with 155mm howitzers. More firepower means safer streets - Sexobon's reasoning. When reality is denied, then a wacko, dumb Trump supporter is identified. He should be apologizing here for Trump. He won't. He loves what is happening because it "Makes America Great". When a penis does the thinking. No wonder he loves Trump - who cannot keep his penis in his pants.
Sexbon strongly supports Donald Trump's praise of KKK, White Supremacists, and Nazis in Charlotte. It was good that they protected a statue promoting racism. That somehow "Makes America Great". Who needed more guns to shoot at moderates? KKK, White Supremacists, and Nazis.
Everyone should carry military assault rifles since Trump says so - Sexobon's reasoning. Sexobon - be informed that a pizza shop in Washington was not promoting The Don's fictional pedophilia. So keep your guns at home where they do more good.. Scumbag extremists love the hate he promotes - including murder of anyone on Fifth Avenue. Just another reason why we need more guns. To make murders on Fifth Ave easier.
Notice how Sexobon is never critical of this scumbag president.
But radical left wing extremists, brainwashed by Hillary and her ilk, convinced them that [strike]only the government should be able to protect people and it would be immoral for them to protect themselves.[/strike] [COLOR="Red"]they shouldn't have to pack guns AT CHURCH-- because that's a totally normal thing that people have always done.[/COLOR]:tinfoil::smack::blah:
Times change. Adapt; or, fall by the wayside. But we never had to do that before is the rally cry of dimwitted losers. Hillary lost. The other dimwits who can't change can fall by the wayside with her.
Times change, but gibbering on about Hillary Clinton never goes out of style. :bonk:
She's the poster girl for losers who can't adapt. :p:
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
She's the poster girl for losers who can't adapt. :p:
Nobody's forcing you to put her on your poster.
Hillary and I were both born in Chicago. Both of our families moved to the burbs when we were kids. The homes we were raised in are about 3 miles apart. We would have gone to the same high school (albeit at different times, she's an old broad) except for the school zoning. This excerpt from Wikipedia pretty much summed up her destiny:
She was elected class vice president for her junior year, but then lost the election for class president for her senior year against two boys, one of whom told her that "you are really stupid if you think a girl can be elected president".
Hard to believe that with all the things we had going for us back then, she would turn out to be a loser because she couldn't adapt. I think she fell in with the wrong crowd and Bill was a bad influence on her.
Hard to believe that with all the things we had going for us back then, she would turn out to be a loser because she couldn't adapt.
A loser is a wacko right wing extremists whose long history is to disparage others.
Do you ever have something informative or useful to contribute? Why do your routinely demean others - except Trump.
Trump adapts = Trump won.
Trump = winning.
Dems can't adapt = Hillary lost.
Dems = losing.
Dems live in glass houses 'cause they can't adapt, tw cleans them.
Trump adapts = Trump won.
Hitler adapted = Hitler won. People who insult and hate are loved by wacko extremists. Trump is so satanic as to be Sexobon's new god. All praise The Donald. The only person that Sexobon does not insult.
Trump approve of the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists. Since it is hate, then Sexobon praises Trump. He never denies it.
Trump is so satanic as to be Sexobon's new god.
But a fewer god. :haha:
I read a good
article this morning.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the rise of the Islamic State, researchers have intensively studied what makes someone a terrorist and how people become radicalized. Arie Kruglanski, a research psychologist at the University of Maryland, has found that although the subject matter of their extremism may be different, the way in which neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and members of the Islamic State evolve from merely disgruntled to violently angry is the same.
For radicalization to occur, there are three necessary ingredients, according to Kruglanski's research. The first is the universal need to live a worthwhile life — to have significance. People usually satisfy this need through socially accepted means, "like working hard, having families, other kinds of achievements," Kruglanski said. Radicals instead tend to place significance on their gender, religion or race.
The second is "the narrative," which gives someone permission to use violence. Kruglanski said the narrative is usually that there is an enemy attacking your group, and the radical must fight to gain or maintain respect, honor or glory.
The third necessary component is the community, or the network of people who validate the narrative and the violence.
There's a lot more in the article. Basically, the big thing that has changed recently is the 3rd component. You-know-who is making hate OK, and that's causing a tipping point.
… then Sexobon praises Trump. He never denies it.
I state facts. It's not my fault you're not astute enough to recognize them. If ever in your existence you had been able to learn from history, you would know that winners don't have to deny anything. It's losers like you who have to deny being at fault for failure. It's why you whine so much. You're trying to distract from your ineptitude. That only works with other losers though.
I state facts.
Again no facts stated. And more insults. A classic Donald Trump supporter who only understands hate. Apparently he was the class bully.
These extremists love it when The Donald goes to Pittsburgh and talks about himself. That massacre was nothing more than a another campaign rally. An example of a fact: that Sexobon would not discuss. Its always about The Don. People who only understand hate and insults love such liars.
I stated a fact:
Trump adapts = Trump won.
...
Tw quoted my fact:
Trump adapts = Trump won.
...
Tw says no facts stated after quoting my fact:
Again no facts stated. ...
Ergo, tw is a liar and an imbecile.
Tw whines like a child.
The second is "the narrative," which gives someone permission to use violence. Kruglanski said the narrative is usually that there is an enemy attacking your group, and the radical must fight to gain or maintain respect, honor or glory.
Putting a bigger gun in their hands amplifies justification of that narrative. Guns change a mindset especially of those with tendencies to become a radicalized extremist.
Notice who is doing all this killing - in Parkland, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Oklahoma City, Miami Beach, Las Vegas, Charleston, UC Santa Barbara, mail bombs from FL, Washington DC, Alturas CA, etc. Almost every mass killing is by whites (mostly men) who are American citizens. Completely missing from a list of villains are Latinos. But an asshole president has told our wackos that these illegal immigrants are coming here to murder us all. Hate and fear works on adults who are still children.
That fear (that is popular among wacko right wing extremists - and not wacko left wing extremists) is even widely believed in Duluth, MN - about as far away from the border as one can get. In a town that has almost no immigrants. So hate is easily promoted there.
Who are most dangerous? Not illegal immigrants. Not green card holders. White American citizens - overwhelmingly those who are educated by wacko extremists such as Laura Ingalls, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Breitbart, etc.
What do they most need to defend themselves from unarmed people? Military assault weapons. Possession of these only increases a desire to "Screw the optics. I'm going in".
Once we remove lies from The Don and his disciples, then America's greatest threats come from white American citizens. Big guns make their actions easier to justify.
Ergo, tw is a liar and an imbecile.
More insults from a wacko right wing extremist. An not one honest fact to justify his emotions. The perfect example of what The Don needs to promote himself - at our expense.
… Completely missing from a list of villains are Latinos. ...
That's tw's cherry picked list. He thinks you other Cellar dwellars are that gullible. He may be right as there's no shortage of people among you who engage in confirmation bias.
Facts:
Category: Mexican mass murderers
Ramon Salcido
Eduardo Sencion
Ramón Bojórquez Salcido (born March 6, 1961 in Los Mochis, Sinaloa, Mexico) is a convicted Mexican-American mass murderer and as of 2017 is on death row in California's San Quentin State Prison.
He was convicted for the 1989 murders of seven people, including his wife and two of his daughters, four-year-old Sofía and 22-month-old Teresa. A third daughter, three-year-old Carmina, was left lying in a field beside the bodies of her sisters for 36 hours after being slashed across the throat by her father. She was rescued ...
On April 14, 1989, after a night of drinking and snorting cocaine, Salcido slashed his daughters' throats; killing Sofia and Teresa, Carmina survived. He then drove them to a county dump. Salcido then drove to Cotati, where he killed his mother-in-law and her two daughters. He then returned to his home in Boyes Hot Springs where he shot his wife, Angela Salcido. He then went to the Grand Cru winery, his place of employment, where he killed Tracey Toovey his coworker.
Salcido fled after the killings to Mexico, via Calexico. He was arrested in Guasave, Mexico, on April 19, 1989. When arrested, Salcido told police that he committed the murders because he suspected his wife was having an affair with a coworker.
Eduardo Sencion (also known as Eduardo Perez-Gonzalez; July 22, 1979 – September 6, 2011) was born in Mexico and had a valid U.S. passport. He had no previous criminal history and worked at his family's business ...
On September 6, 2011, a gunman, identified as 32-year-old Eduardo Sencion,[3] opened fire in a branch of the IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, killing four people, including three members of the National Guard, and wounding seven others.
At 8:58 a.m., Sencion arrived at a local strip mall in a blue minivan that was registered in his brother's name. He got out, shot, and wounded a woman on a motorcycle with a Norinco Mak 90 semi-automatic rifle. At around 9:00 a.m. he walked inside the center's IHOP and made his way to the back where he started shooting. He first targeted a group of uniformed National Guardsmen, all of whom were eating at the same table; five of them were shot, three of them fatally. He then targeted other patrons, killing a 67-year-old woman.
Sencion then left the restaurant and began shooting into three nearby businesses, injuring no one. ...
… Due to the severity of the massacre and fears that it would become more widespread, Nevada officials declared a lock-down on the state capitol and Supreme Court buildings for around 40 minutes, while extra security was set up at state and military buildings in northern Nevada. ...
That's tw's cherry picked list.
Sexobon will say anything to prove his superiority. It explains his love for Trump. Because drug cartels in Columbia were murdering people, then that proved Colombians in America will be mass murdering Americans.
Because corrupt gangs in Central America are massacring people, that proves refugees from those nations will mass murder Americans.
One must be a wacko extremist to believe such nonsense. No wonder he so admires The Don. The Donald promots Trump by preaching fear and hate to naive right wing extremists. Trump discovered hate and fear did not work when he was a liberal. It works on the most wacko right wingers who fear like Timothy McVeigh.
Since mass murders occurred in Rwanda and Brunei, then that proves refugees from those nations are mass murders. Only a Trump supporter, inspired by a need for assault weapons, is so misinformed - brainwashed.
Mass murders in America are mostly by American citizens (not immigrants) who think and insult like Sexobon. These are mostly white America males who are ordered by right wing wacko talk show hosts to fear and be violent - just like the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists.
Trump's power is provided by those adults who still think like children - emotionally. Notice how Sexobon does not speak out against Trump's hate and organizations of violence. Instead he blames immigrants as Trump has ordered. Brainwashing.
Columbians are good, they take their children to the White House.
Obviously tw has not been to Central America. He's been brainwashed by leftist extremist democrats and preaches their gospel of importing their future voters so they don't have appease the existing middle class.
I've worked in Central America and have both the experience and objective reasoning skills to realize that the difference between one person who kills twenty people and twenty people who each kill one is without distinction except to radical left wing propagandists. That's why we control immigration.
Tw has second world ethics. Expect more of same, in fact expect to see thousands more like tw, if immigration is allowed to run rampant.
Obviously tw has not been to Central America.
Just like trying to get Trump to stay on topic. Central America is clearly irrelevant. Discussed here because Sexobon claims people fleeing those nations what to harm America and murder Americans. As if corruption in Central America means immigrants are coming here to murder us all - the wacko extremist propaganda.
Greatest threat to American citizens are whlte American citizens who also need military assault rifles. Sexobon is in that category. Latinos clearly are not a threat - when one replaces hate and propaganda with honesty and facts.
Who must we hate? Immigrants. Wacko right wing extremists (ie Sexobon) say that because a central committee of the communist party and their mouthpieces (ie Fox News) have ordered them what to think. This election is about hate that Sexobon and Trump endorse, believe, and promote.
Rather than admit who is a threat, Sexobon wants to discuss evil residents of Rwanda and Central America. Only those who hate cannot admit who is the greatest threat: white citizens who promote right wing wacko propaganda and hate. Those say "Screw the optics. I'm going in."
Sexobon will not even disparage the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists because Trump said those are good people. Those American citizens (wacko right wing extremists) are the greatest threat to all Americans. This election is about those insults, lies, and hate.
So a right wing extremist here must change the topic.
Columbians are good, they take their children to the White House.
Don't tell Sexobon that. He will start insulting you.
Why would anyone insult xoB just because he said people from DC are good?
Tw is so ignorant he doesn't even know that people from Colombia are Colombians. Tw isn't as smart as a Trump.
Why would anyone insult xoB just because he said people from DC are good?
Wow. This wacko right wing extremists is so emotional (so angry) as to always reply in hours or minutes. He must be sitting there just waiting to ambush honest and educated people. Classic of wackos who love Trump and hate what made America great.
He will insult anyone who exposes lies and hate. He even believes the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists were good people. Because Trump said so. After all, Trump would not lie.
I'm smart enough to be able to multitask. You're not even as smart as a Trump. That fact was evidenced in your posts above. No one expects you to be able to understand.
Poor, poor pitiful you.
Poor, poor pitiful you.
Wow. Reality has made him so angry that is replied in record time. Did I say 'replied'. My mistake. He insults. It says why he loves Trump and hates what made America great.
Do we want more Sexobons encouraging massacres? Or will we vote against an asshole president - and right wing extremist (ie Sexobon) hate? This election is about lies, hate, and insults. And the massacres that have and will occur because of this divisiveness.
^Whines like a Clinton.^
Since a previous insult was such genius, he reposted it. Wow. Such wisdom and imagination. He must be a Trump supporter.
Wow. Such wisdom and imagination.
It would seem that way to those who aren't as smart as a Trump.
More mass shootings because everyone should carry assult weapons. So routine (due to hate promoted by our wacko president and others) that but another massacre (Thousand Oaks CA) passes without comment.
We know that more guns increase the number of murders. That has not changed in hundreds of years. And we know this massacre rate should increase as more Americans need assault weapons - as promoted by hate and fear. Ironically by people who approved of the KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists in Charlotte.
We need these guns to protect ourselves from immigrants - and college kids.
No, flamethrowers.
Gotta 'sterilize' the area
No, flamethrowers.
Extremists will not admit it yet. But their objective is 155 mm howitzers for anyone who 'needs' one. Because it has the same purpose as an assault rifle. To even empower wackos to kill moderates who see through wackos extremist rhetoric. From Timothy McVeigh to bombs in the mail and a massacre in Pittsburgh. In every case, inspired by hate routinely promoted (especially in rural regions) to the many adults who cannot think for themselves.
No, the objective is to put Grade-A ATOM BOMBS in the hands of anyone who wants one or more.
Christ, but you're a humorless creep, aren't ya.
My family moved to Thousand Oaks in 1969. I attended grade school and middle school in T.O., and went to high school in neighboring Newbury Park (where the killer lived). I buried both of my parents last year in Thousand Oaks. My brother and his family still live a few miles away. T.O. has been
home to me and my family for almost 50 years, and even though I haven't lived there in decades, it's
still fuckin' home.
I'm crushed by this. I can't stop crying. Although I doubt I knew any of the victims, my niece's son's little league team was coached by Cody Coffman, the first identified civilian victim of this horror.
T.O. is
safe, dammit. It has ALWAYS been safe.
Thousand Oaks is one of the safest cities in America, according to consistent FBI reporting. In October 2013, Thousand Oaks was ranked the fourth safest city with a population over 100,000 in America, according to an annual report by the FBI. It has one of the lowest crime rates in California. The company Niche ranked Thousand Oaks as America's second-safest city in 2016. The city experienced its first homicide in four years in October 2014.
Despite a significant population growth since the 1990s, the city has experienced a general crime decline. In 2015, there were 1.05 violent crimes per 1,000 residents, up from 0.99 in 2014. Overall, the city experienced an one percent crime decrease between 2014 and 2015. Petty theft was the most-reported crime category in 2013, accounting for 40% of all crimes. --Wiki
God. DAMMIT.
Motherfucking GUNS in the hands of motherfucking ASSHOLE LUNATICS.
I can't believe this is what America has become. I've watched in horror the ever-increasing death toll and pointless destruction that guns inflict on our populace. Now it finally hits home with a lethal sledgehammer.
YOUR hometown, YOUR neighborhood could be next. This can't go on.
[SIZE="5"]THIS CAN'T GO ON.[/SIZE]
Small consolation; voters in
my state just passed laws that strengthen gun ownership regulations. An absolute step in the right direction. I pray the rest of the nation recognizes that their pathetic, wussy, penis-extension passes for mayhem
must be reined in before their families and friends become the next victims.
Washington state voters agree to further regulate guns, including semi-automatic riflesNo, flamethrowers.
Gotta 'sterilize' the area
No, the objective is to put Grade-A ATOM BOMBS in the hands of anyone who wants one or more.
Christ, but you're a humorless creep, aren't ya.
Y'know what? Fuck you.
To be fair, TW is a humorless creep...
To be fair, TW is a humorless creep...
Yeah . . . there's no humor in
any of this. :(
I'm feeling for ya, Glinda. Rly.
But I turn down no chance to insult TW.
It's the emotional child in me.
"But I turn down no chance to insult TW."
Yep.
To be fair, TW is a humorless creep...
An adult confronts emotional wackos that encourage this. No humor exists when so many advocate so much destruction - to America and to its people.
These assholes (Henry quirk, sexobon, gravidgr) who justify assault weapons, largest possible clips, and other self serving emotional gratifications are (and will deny) their complicity.
Where is humor in that? Should I laugh in their face?
Constantly asked,
where will be the next massacre of the week? Justified by some here who also approved of the KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, and hate even promoted in The Cellar. Somehow that should be humorous?
Gravdigr - what a pathetic apology. That must be the joke we are suppose to be laughing about?
We're not laughing with you tw, we're laughing at you.
:lol2:
We're not laughing with you tw, we're laughing at you.
No wonder you love KKK, Nazis, and White Supremacists. And never deny it. That laughter is called maniacal hate. No sane person finds it funny. Thank you for encouraging another massacre of the week. And laughing about it. A classic Trump supporter.
"These assholes (Henry quirk, sexobon, gravidgr) who justify assault weapons, largest possible clips, and other self serving emotional gratifications are (and will deny) their complicity."
I can't speak for the other assholes, but me? I deny nuthin': ATOM BOMBS in every garage! ATOM BOMBS in every stew pot! ATOM BOMBS in school! In church! In BED! LOVE DA BOMB!
And guns too...lots and lots of GUNS...all over the damn place...schools, malls, theaters, night clubs...SOCIALIZE guns...when lil Lucille slivers out into the world, hand her an ASSAULT RIFLE (she only gets the tit [or bottle] after she illustrates PROFICIENCY...and AMMO...friggin' boxes of ammo EVERYWHERE...parachute the stuff in...make it FREE.
And Napalm throwers...yep...cuz, yeah, sometimes FIRE is what a body needs.
As for my complicity: yep, all my fault.
Come over, tw: arrest me.
I can't speak for the other assholes, but me? I deny nuthin': ATOM BOMBS in every garage! ATOM BOMBS in every stew pot!
Had it been someone else, then it might be sarcasm. But when each week's massacre occurs, we must always ask where were you when it happened? Not humorous; serious.
These massacres are overwhelmingly by angry, right wing extremists who routinely insult and love a solution (gratification) found in big guns.
Obviously, not at any of those events.
#
"angry, right wing extremists"
That's MISTER angry, anarcho-indvidualist, extremist to you.
Mind your p's & q's, tw.
We assholes take the social niceties seriously.
The both of you are hoplelessly pathetic. And neither of you are right. You're the perfect example of why this shit keeps happening.
I'm not anti-gun. Hell, I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door. But there has to be more oversight on who can buy/own guns. The mental illness and PTSD-related gun deaths are staggering. THAT'S the key - keep guns out of the hands of obviously crazy/mentally broken people.
Go on. Keep acting like rabid dogs fighting over a scrap of meat. It's really helpful. :eyebrow:
Meanwhile people are dying.
*spit*
^this lady gets it
I agree.
The both of you are hoplelessly pathetic.
I don't know who 'both of you' is. Since I have been posting similar to what is in your post. Wackos want any gun any time - including flame throwers and 155 mm howitzers. Feel it is necessary for everyone to always carry guns. This need and love of power corrupts.
Big guns with big clips change a mindset. A guy, who is sane (per the DSM), is empowered to change. A guy in a bar holding a gun and getting angry can become insane - because he is not intelligent enough to control his emotions. But per the DSM, he is sane. Power corrupts that much. Especially true for assault weapons and large clips.
So again, who is this 'both of you'. I also have a gun. From what was posted, that should be obvious. Also posted was similar to what you have said. Maybe the mud he is slinging obfuscates who is who?
People are dying because of wackos who see the world in black and white - conservative and liberal. They are clearly not moderates. Too emotionally attached even to guns. And do not grasp what is 'an adult who is still a child'. Wacko extremists are ordered what to believe. Which includes blaming victims for not carrying a gun to defend themselves.
Is Henry Quirk insane? Not according to any DSM standards. And yet he is an example of those people who performed most all massacres. And it is not immigrants.
"Go on. Keep acting like rabid dogs fighting over a scrap of meat."
Okay.
#
"Meanwhile people are dying."
Not my fault.
#
*spit*
*fart*
Tw is like the Chicken Little of the Cellar:
Kkkradicalmaniacalunamericanwhackonaziswhitesupremacistrightwingextremists are falling! Everywhere! Even here!
Trump is hiding under your bed, waiting for you to go to sleep.
… I also have a gun. ...
A mouse gun. We're not talking about that tw.
[YOUTUBE]yZEV_KQgi10[/YOUTUBE]
Twicken Twittle.
Meanwhile people are dying.
Again the wacko extremists here mock honest Americans (moderates) with their humor. They don't care that their politics openly endorse more hate and massacres. Only relevant is what they have been ordered to think.
Some numbers. There is now a mass shooting almost every day in America. And a massacre almost every week. Directly traceable to wacko extremists who need bigger weapons to protect us from immigrants and who love the power ... that inspires some of them to commit massacres. They love the hate promoted by Trump.
Most dangerous are adults who still think like children. These are are white American citizens brainwashed with the wacko right wing extremist rhetoric. Timothy McVeigh was the example; not the exception. Wacko extremist blame it on immigrants who mythically commit most murders.
Demonstrated above is their laughter and contempt for Americans. Just like in 1930 Germany, so many even here are silent about their hate. So where will next week's massacre occur?
Those two even agreed with Trump that Nazis, White Supremacists, and KKK were good people. And they do not deny it. Why are so many others so silent - to all but endorse what happened in Thousand Oaks.
Notice how Sexobon mocks when one's gun is not big enough. Adult who is still a child and therefore advocated more and bigger guns to kill more in Thousand Oaks, et al. He thinks it is funny.
For shame, tw bumped new content in the California is Burning thread to regurgitate stuff he's already said before in this thread. The self gratification he gets from listening to himself supersedes all legitimate concerns about the plights of others. He's a parasite who feeds off human tragedy by pontificating for his own self aggrandizement. What a disgrace.
The thing is, he does it so incompetently that he's laughable.
This from the guy who votes a straight ticket. *sigh*
Yep I did that one time, to shift power away from Trumpists.
You might as well face it, you're addicted to [strike]th[/strike] dem.
Let's hope the GOP sorts itself out before the Dems start thinking they are all that.
No, more like 'sane individuals here mockin' insane cogs with class and style'.
My family moved to Thousand Oaks in 1969. I attended grade school and middle school in T.O., and went to high school in neighboring Newbury Park (where the killer lived).
He had no reason. :facepalm:
The first call to law enforcement came in at 11:19 p.m. Wednesday, officials said. The authorities arrived at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, three minutes later. They entered the building at 11:25 p.m.
Long, 28, first posted on Instagram at 11:24 p.m: "It's too bad I won't get to see all the illogical and pathetic reasons people will put in my mouth as to why I did it," the military veteran said in the post. "Fact is I had no reason to do it, and I just thought....(exploitive), life is boring so why not?" Long posted, according to ABC News and Buzzfeed.
Three minutes later Long posted, "I hope people call me insane (two smiley face emojiis) would that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah... I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'...or 'keep you in my thoughts'."
He added, "Every time...and wonder why these keep happening... --(two smiley face emojis)."
Long ended the killing spree by taking his own life.
He had a reason: nihilism. A sense of meaningless of life. You will find it in all the killers that are not mentally disturbed.
Yep.
The first leg of the three legged stool of mass killers and terrorists, according to the article I linked in post 377 above.
For radicalization to occur, there are three necessary ingredients, according to Kruglanski's research. The first is the universal need to live a worthwhile life — to have significance. People usually satisfy this need through socially accepted means, "like working hard, having families, other kinds of achievements," Kruglanski said. Radicals instead tend to place significance on their gender, religion or race.
The second is "the narrative," which gives someone permission to use violence. Kruglanski said the narrative is usually that there is an enemy attacking your group, and the radical must fight to gain or maintain respect, honor or glory.
The third necessary component is the community, or the network of people who validate the narrative and the violence.
This from the guy who votes a straight ticket.
Due to people who only post insults, lies, and demeaning attacks, I also did this for the first time. Because the Republican party is now dominated by people who use extremist emotion to make conclusions.
When discussing adults who are still children, then those 'child like' reply with personal attacks. And nothing that is useful or adult.
Similar people also need assault rifles to massacres others. Then use their unstable thinking to justify more assault weapons.
The second is "the narrative," which gives someone permission to use violence. Kruglanski said the narrative is usually that there is an enemy attacking your group, and the radical must fight to gain or maintain respect, honor or glory.
The third necessary component is the community, or the network of people who validate the narrative and the violence.
Both are provided by right wing talk show radios. It plays constantly in rural radio stations. I have watched some change once they discovered and then became emotionally inspired by the hate they heard on extremist talk radio.
One was living with (and being supported by) an immigrant. She noted how he changed once he started listening to the Drudge Report. He would routinely blame his unemployment on immigrants. He claimed to be a network engineer. But could not answer basic concepts in Cisco equipment.
Then, when he drank, he became quite belligerent.
In mass shooters, not necessarily radicals, these people seem to have a specific take on step 1, and no step 3 at all.
They want significance, but rather than to prove worth, they want to prove worthlessness. So they seek to destroy meaningful lives ("See," they are saying, "Now you're dead, and all the things you thought were worthwhile are gone.") And they usually expect or plan their own death in the process ("If life has worth, I would definitely stick around - but in order to be taken seriously I must show that the worthlessness extends to myself.")
They want significance, but rather than to prove worth, they want to prove worthlessness. So they seek to destroy meaningful lives ("See," they are saying, "Now you're dead, and all the things you thought were worthwhile are gone.")
The one would-be mass shooter I've talked to justified it as giving them significance, that they would be more accomplished and revered as victims than anything they could manage on their own.
In mass shooters, ... seem to have a specific take on step 1, and no step 3 at all.
I don't see facts that justify the "not step 3". What justifies that conclusion?
One may become a martyr to be relevant. Martyrs don't need to stick around for confirmation. They already
know they will be praised (by their peers or by their god).
The community they are talking about is not the community you are talking about.
There is no "mass shooter community" as there is in, say, extremist talk radio. Mass shooters often say they admire other mass shooters, but they don't talk with them or, you know, hang out on web forums with them.
Due to people who only post insults, lies, and demeaning attacks, I also did this for the first time. …
… Similar people also need assault rifles to massacres others. Then use their unstable thinking to justify more assault weapons.
… Mass shooters often say they admire other mass shooters, but they don't talk with them or, you know, hang out on web forums with them.
Tw infers there are similar people right here in the Cellar; yet, he talks with them and hangs out on this web forum with them.
How do you explain this?
How do you explain this?
Scientific research of animals in the wild.
You're the only one here predisposed to going on a murderous rampage. You're in denial about those feelings and project your hostilities, prominently displayed here, onto others.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
Still, you want to be able to act out on your own when you think the time is right. That's why you own a gun, why you NEED a gun, and why you're always asking when the next massacre will be as though you know something that others don't because you fantasize about being the perpetrator. This is evident after simple scientific analysis which includes the facts that you haven't got police or military training which would qualify you to use a gun to defend others. Of course, you don't need training to murder others with your gun.
Everyone knows you're the loose cannon. That's why we keep you around -
keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
Cut that out, you're going to get all killed to death. :rolleyes:
Notice tw's fascination with human tragedy, which goes way beyond the norm. Tw indulges his fantasies by regurgitating those tragedies here ad infinitum. Then tw tries to incite others to cause more tragedies by provoking them with hate labels to feed his disease. Tw exploits the sympathies of the old and weak so they'll try to minimize tw's psychopathic behavior by interjecting droll humor.
You're the only one here predisposed to going on a murderous rampage.
Um...Ahem...Hellerrr, I'm
right here![ATTACH]65593[/ATTACH]
If anybody gonna be a loose cannon, it's me.
[size=1]That's where
my money's at, anyway.[/size]
Killing 'em with laughter is really more like assisted suicide.
Um...Ahem...Hellerrr, I'm right here![ATTACH]65593[/ATTACH]
If anybody gonna be a loose cannon, it's me.
[size=1]That's where my money's at, anyway.[/size]
Pretty insulting, right? And me with all this hoarded ammo.
You're stockpiling snowballs?
I was being ironic earlier. This is the community.
I play the long game. You took a long while to notice. You are here because we need your training.
[YOUTUBE]UIjYbG7vB_I[/YOUTUBE]
My stepson was involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital last night after revealing to ER staff his detailed plan to shoot up his high school. So, you know. Fun times.
(I'm sure y'all know who this is, but medical confidentiality and all that.)
I'm fucking tired.
Stepson was released today after 2 court dates and 10.5 months in multiple locked-down mental institutions. We've done everything we can, but it's not our call. He has to actually shoot or stab someone before he can be committed again, despite statements to the effect of, "I don't feel like killing anyone right this minute, but I do still believe there would be great glory in killing as many people as possible."
If any Dwellars know people whose kids attend high school in the Houston area, DM me for more info. I'm serious as shit.
Keep in mind that you'll have no control over what others do with whatever information you give them. That can range from blowing it off to instigating his peers to conduct a preemptive strike. He's not the only one in an age group that's been known to get away with violence including murder.
I'm not identifying him personally (hence the anonymous account.) I'm just willing to let them know which high school they may want to transfer out of, if they are in a packing-up-and-moving kind of mood.
Also perhaps worth noting: when he entered his most recent residential facility, he was the first planned-school-shooter they'd ever had. By the time he left today, he was one of three.
It's a problem.
Is the school aware of his hobby?
The old school certainly was--one hospital notified local police after his biological mom refused to cooperate with medical professionals, and the sergeant assigned to the case was the permanent officer at the high school. When my stepson was transferred from one facility to another, it was in the back of this police officer's vehicle. He definitely can't go back to the old school, but the district as a whole has to take him as long as he hasn't done anything expellable.
We're unclear as to how far Bio Mom has moved forward with her choice of new school. It may be wishful thinking on her part. The district may know everything at an upper level already, and tell her it's the disciplinary high school or nothing. Or they may have their hands tied as well, if she can get a medical professional to sign off on him being stable. As of right now, he's transferring to a day program that allows him to sleep at home at night, but that only happened after Bio Mom was informed that her first choice of an afternoons-only day program (so he could jump back into school immediately) was medically unacceptable. The all-day-program may keep him for up to several months, but by August he'll definitely be in full-time school again if she has her way--or, possibly he'll have snapped again and be back in a facility, or jail, or dead.
The best I can realistically foresee happening is he attacks someone non-lethally before his 18th birthday, so he's tried as a minor and spends the rest of his life in a mental hospital. All other scenarios have worse outcomes for both him and everyone else. I'd love to be an optimist and say he keeps this thing under control and lives a productive life, but I've talked to him for too many hours about this stuff and I don't believe it's possible.
From what you've written, it seems unlikely he'll attack just some[SIZE="3"]one[/SIZE] as he seems interested in numbers. He also seems interested in the killing more so than doing it by shooting. Restricted access to firearms and explosive materials may delay acting out; but, maintain awareness of alternate methods based upon availability and simplicity - like a chemical attack!
Nothing fancy, just old fashioned mass poisoning via contaminated foods or beverages at a gathering. There are plenty of products in the home and on store shelves that can be lethal if ingested. Let others be your taste testers when he's around and keep the poison control center number handy. Don't become collateral damage.
