Yet another needless mass shooting

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
CAPT Brad
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:12 pm
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 2

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#61 Post by CAPT Brad » Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:53 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:50 pm
CAPT Brad wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:20 pm
But you need groceries. Hardly anyone needs a gun when driving through the city.

Depends on the city. In chicago, you need an armored vehicle.

And why has your society, and your government, allowed Chicago to get so fucked up?
[/quote]

Because they keep electing Democrats. No one can screw up a city, state or nation like Democrats.

`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo`
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#62 Post by `ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` » Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:12 pm

President Eden wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:13 pm
`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:05 pm
President Eden wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:44 am
how can you be more likely to be murdered by someone than need a gun for non-recreational use? literally any circumstance in which you would be murdered is definitionally a circumstance in which you would need a gun for non-recreational use.
Because if someone premeditates that they're going to kill you they probably won't wait for you to get your gun. If someone doesn't premeditate but kills "in the moment," they're not going to wait for you to get your gun either. If you had a conceal and carry, you probably wouldn't have the wherewithal to draw on them before it's too late anyways.

I don't mean to say there shouldn't be conceal and carry, I'm just saying that most murderers, including mass shooters, kill before anyone is able to take them down.
First off, don't move the goalposts. I asked you a specific question: how can you be more likely to be murdered someone than need a gun for non-recreational use? You have established already that these are situations where the need for a gun is present. Why did you make this absurdly hyperbolic statement?

Secondly, how do you know any of these things? You are just blindly presuming that a would-be shooter is always going to beat anyone to the punch, will always be aware of every potential counterattacker, and is never going to miss, have a gun jam, run out of ammo or need to reload before the counterattacker comes along... you have no basis for any of these assumptions.
You're the one making it hyperbolic. Since you're obviously missing the point, let me edit my wording to say "use a gun" from "need a gun". Maybe you would have understood that if you took the attitude of trying to understand what another person is saying instead of trying to win an argument.

If you research when conceal and carry actually had an effect. The NRA eats this stuff up, but you can't find a whole lot of articles about it. It's not something you can apply statistics to because it's so rare. It's anecdotal, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm blindly presuming things. The problem is the knowledge gap --- a murderer knows what they're doing before a law-abiding gunman knows. But I think we need people with conceal and carry to create a healthy fear in criminals and to take down mass shooters if needed. That was what I would consider the weakest part of my overall argument. I think suicide and accidents are a much bigger problem with guns. My overall argument in a sentence is that having a gun is more dangerous than not having a gun. I don't think this is a really controversial opinion I'm presenting. No need to be so offensive President Eden. 8-)

ksako8
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 am
Karma: 35

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#63 Post by ksako8 » Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:05 am

@President Eden: please reflect on your post. Second: I am very open to anything that would help your citizens (US citizens) to be safer. Learning from other countries might help, but you immediately go for "we are different". Gun control has proven to be effective in other countries. You might want to try it, and maybe it doesn't help as you expect. But maybe it will! Wouldn't that be great? Not everything smart or good was invented in the USA. You might actually learn something from how other countries solved their problems.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 17285
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 8137
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#64 Post by Jamiet99uk » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 pm

Trump has now tweeted to advise Americans that anyone with a mental illness must be reported to the authorities "again and again" to prevent further shootings.

What a fucking ignorant shit he is.

Randomizer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 211

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#65 Post by Randomizer » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:26 pm

When is Trump going to get turned in for mental illness?

President Eden
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:11 pm
Karma: 1619

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#66 Post by President Eden » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:43 pm

thamrick wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:59 pm
President Eden wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:37 pm
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you give me an example of why you feel that way (like you are being derided)? I think your stance is completely reasonable and a valuable discussion to have. I don't think that your view and the pro-gun control view are at odds either.
My post criticizing the copy-paste application of Australia's gun control legislation to the United States as "So, you don't want to do anything?" by ksako is a great example of what I mean. It is the constant go-to from not all, but entirely too many, gun control advocates, that opposing gun control as a reasonable solution means you don't think there's a problem or don't want to solve it. Jamie and Ogion just did it on this very page of the thread.

I admit I misinterpreted your post and apologize for that though.

I think you will find that my view is fundamentally at odds with gun control, because I think gun control would be an enormous disaster for the US, but I do also think we will be able to find other angles of attacking the specific school-shooting problem that gave rise to this conversation in an effective way.
A fair point, but I would also classify your response to the initial idea of proposing similar gun control to that of Australia's as derisive. I'm not talking about the content of the arguments, but rather the tone.

Regardless, I think it's an overgeneralization and hope that you don't remain jaded by the actions of the few. The same is true for the other side. Differing ideas doesn't mean we need to be uncivil.

Why is your view at odds with gun control? Correct me if I'm missing something, but your view is that there is a mentality issue in glorifying mass murders and not addressing mental health. Why can we not address these issues in conjunction with limiting access to guns?
It is far too late to avoid being jaded. Look at the clowns in this thread, the one posting directly above me just copied a sensationalist headline from some lying left-wing propaganda rag without doing even a two-minute check of the source in question to see if it was true or not.
I engage lefties who I think truly want to engage, but I'm not going to play nice or pretend that the majority of them aren't either twisted propagandists or total sheep of aforesaid propagandists. When I encounter enough reasonable ones, like you, then maybe my opinion will change; and I'm happy to talk to anybody who wants to have a real conversation.

My view is at odds with gun control because gun control is a multifaceted issue, and while it's inarguable that seizing all guns would reduce the number of deaths in mass killing events like the school shooting last week, there are other societal harms that arise from such a policy that it will never seriously be an option in my mind. If the only issue with guns were preventing school shootings -- if school shootings were the only things guns were used for -- then I daresay you wouldn't find a single person who would oppose total gun confiscation. But their usefulness far exceeds their function in committing crimes, and so instead of trying to reduce access to a tool that the majority of Americans use properly and safely, I want to attack the source of the problem, which is whatever causes people to acquire a rifle and shoot up a school.
`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:12 pm
President Eden wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:13 pm
`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:05 pm


Because if someone premeditates that they're going to kill you they probably won't wait for you to get your gun. If someone doesn't premeditate but kills "in the moment," they're not going to wait for you to get your gun either. If you had a conceal and carry, you probably wouldn't have the wherewithal to draw on them before it's too late anyways.

I don't mean to say there shouldn't be conceal and carry, I'm just saying that most murderers, including mass shooters, kill before anyone is able to take them down.
First off, don't move the goalposts. I asked you a specific question: how can you be more likely to be murdered someone than need a gun for non-recreational use? You have established already that these are situations where the need for a gun is present. Why did you make this absurdly hyperbolic statement?

Secondly, how do you know any of these things? You are just blindly presuming that a would-be shooter is always going to beat anyone to the punch, will always be aware of every potential counterattacker, and is never going to miss, have a gun jam, run out of ammo or need to reload before the counterattacker comes along... you have no basis for any of these assumptions.
You're the one making it hyperbolic. Since you're obviously missing the point, let me edit my wording to say "use a gun" from "need a gun". Maybe you would have understood that if you took the attitude of trying to understand what another person is saying instead of trying to win an argument.

If you research when conceal and carry actually had an effect. The NRA eats this stuff up, but you can't find a whole lot of articles about it. It's not something you can apply statistics to because it's so rare. It's anecdotal, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm blindly presuming things. The problem is the knowledge gap --- a murderer knows what they're doing before a law-abiding gunman knows. But I think we need people with conceal and carry to create a healthy fear in criminals and to take down mass shooters if needed. That was what I would consider the weakest part of my overall argument. I think suicide and accidents are a much bigger problem with guns. My overall argument in a sentence is that having a gun is more dangerous than not having a gun. I don't think this is a really controversial opinion I'm presenting. No need to be so offensive President Eden. 8-)
How am I the one "making it hyperbolic" when I quoted your own words and asked you to defend them and you felt you had to change them because the first draft was too unreasonable to defend? Not that it matters; need and use, for a responsible owner, are one and the same, which bridges to the main issue I had...

I don't agree with your premise that having a gun is more dangerous than not. All of the fail cases you listed involve some gun owners being irresponsible. For irresponsible people, I'm sure possession of a dangerous item is more dangerous than not. For people who are conscientious and respect the power of aforesaid dangerous item, the risk is greatly diminished and the ability to protect oneself from external danger outweighs that risk which remains. You are making reasonable statements about gun ownership in aggregate, but about an aggregate too large to make useful statements.
ksako8 wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:05 am
@President Eden: please reflect on your post. Second: I am very open to anything that would help your citizens (US citizens) to be safer. Learning from other countries might help, but you immediately go for "we are different". Gun control has proven to be effective in other countries. You might want to try it, and maybe it doesn't help as you expect. But maybe it will! Wouldn't that be great? Not everything smart or good was invented in the USA. You might actually learn something from how other countries solved their problems.
"European stereotype of America," the post.
Instead of stereotyping me why don't you read what I actually say? "Reflect on my post" as you put it.
I said Australia's measures, which involved complete gun confiscation, would not work if copy-pasted to a country that is larger, has land borders, and has a much stronger culture of gun ownership. You decided to fill in that this means I must believe that America is the sole progenitor of every good thing that has ever happened, that no other country in history has ever designed anything useful. You put that in my mouth, I didn't say any of that.
And fuck no I don't want to try confiscation. That's not something you just get to walk back later. A republic depends upon its people being armed in order to ensure it stays free. Australia might get away with it for a while, and I hope for their sake forever, but the historical record is clear: republics don't stay republics, and overwhelmingly lose their republican status due to increasing, inappropriate (by the standards of that republic) concentrations of power by the state against the popular will. A society with a lot of people that own a lot of guns will deter this inevitability for longer than one without.

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 316
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#67 Post by peterlund » Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:57 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 pm
Trump has now tweeted to advise Americans that anyone with a mental illness must be reported to the authorities "again and again" to prevent further shootings.

What a fucking ignorant shit he is.
And the rest 75% of them are equally ignorant. They did not vote Hillary, either they passively accepted this shithead or they where actively buying Putin's fake propaganda. Hilarious isn't it? Traitors the whole lot!

CAPT Brad
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:12 pm
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 2

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#68 Post by CAPT Brad » Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:50 pm

Funny the Swede talks of traitors. Remember Quisling? The Swedes are a nation of cowering, treacherous, tepid, calculating, cowardly-neutral, Nazi-simpathetic, stone-headed, ignoramus trending, self-centered shit of a people. Any decent person of Swedish heritage left there in the nineteenth century and emigrated to Wisconsin. The rest are the detritus of Europe.

Jamiet99uk
Posts: 17285
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 8137
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#69 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:03 am

Quisling was Norwegian.

Octavious
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 1936
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#70 Post by Octavious » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:30 am

It's a funny thing. Every time I think Brad has taken his trolling to a level of ridiculousness so extreme that not even webDippers could take him seriously, I am quickly proven wrong...

CAPT Brad
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:12 pm
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 2

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#71 Post by CAPT Brad » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:19 pm

I don't support assault weapons. That's for small fry. If you want to destroy something use a sixteen inch shell. Now that is shootin'

CAPT Brad
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:12 pm
Location: Long Beach, California
Karma: 2

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#72 Post by CAPT Brad » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:20 pm

Oh condensation, here is a vacuum cleaner you can latch your lips on.

`ZaZaMaRaNDaBo`
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:20 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#73 Post by `ZaZaMaRaNDaBo` » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:26 pm

President Eden wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:43 pm
How am I the one "making it hyperbolic" when I quoted your own words and asked you to defend them and you felt you had to change them because the first draft was too unreasonable to defend? Not that it matters; need and use, for a responsible owner, are one and the same, which bridges to the main issue I had...

I don't agree with your premise that having a gun is more dangerous than not. All of the fail cases you listed involve some gun owners being irresponsible. For irresponsible people, I'm sure possession of a dangerous item is more dangerous than not. For people who are conscientious and respect the power of aforesaid dangerous item, the risk is greatly diminished and the ability to protect oneself from external danger outweighs that risk which remains. You are making reasonable statements about gun ownership in aggregate, but about an aggregate too large to make useful statements.
I see where you're coming from. Someone might say that I am using an ecological fallacy. My logic follows a mix of statistical inferences and anecdotal evidence. I do not have raw data about some of the things I listed (you're more likely to get shot by a mass shooter than shoot a mass shooter), but I am fairly confident about those statements. There is a lot of data about the prevalence of suicide and gun-related accidents. I have read a lot of these articles in the past as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

So, I applied that to say that on average, a gun-owner is more likely to use their gun irresponsibly than for non-recreational use to make a general statement that you should not buy a gun for non-recreational use. So, my question for you is, how can a potential gun-owner decide if they are responsible or not? I do not think most gun-owners consider this before buying a gun. One of the greatest fallacies of game theorists is that everyone people are rational. Also, notice that I'm really trying to strike a balance here. I think there are some people are responible enough to have a conceal and carry. From what I have heard, it actually is a rigorous process to get a conceal and carry, as it should be. But I think most gunowners are not carefully considering if it is worth the risks.

Condescension
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:09 pm
Karma: 19

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#74 Post by Condescension » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:34 pm

CAPT Brad wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:20 pm
Oh condensation, here is a vacuum cleaner you can latch your lips on.
Why was my post deleted and I was issued a warning, but his asinine response to it was not?

Octavious
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 1936
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#75 Post by Octavious » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:46 pm

We're deleting posts now? I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the politics thread was to be run with a more relaxed approach to moderation?

Randomizer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 211

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#76 Post by Randomizer » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:12 pm

Trump is now open to stricter gun control laws.

So is he going to go back to the Obama era that he and the Republicans repealed? Especially the one where mentally ill list couldn't buy guns without filing an appeal. They still could get guns after showing that they were safe.

This is opposed to current Florida laws where minors could buy assault rifles before they could get driver's licenses.

Condescension
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:09 pm
Karma: 19

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#77 Post by Condescension » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:34 pm

Octavious wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:46 pm
We're deleting posts now? I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the politics thread was to be run with a more relaxed approach to moderation?
Yes, I posted a paragraph long post between Brad's last two posts where I implied he's brain damaged at the tail end, and the whole thing was deleted. Pretty cool!

flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 2978
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1046

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#78 Post by flash2015 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:45 pm

CAPT Brad wrote:
Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:20 pm
But you need groceries. Hardly anyone needs a gun when driving through the city.

Depends on the city. In chicago, you need an armored vehicle.
[/quote]

I think you mispelled "New Orleans"...

You know that Chicago is not even close to being the top city for homicide or non-fatal shootings? That honour goes to New Orleans (3x the homicide rate of Chicago) and St Louis (8x higher non-fatal shootings):

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicag ... pita-rate/

Randomizer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:04 am
Karma: 211

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#79 Post by Randomizer » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:14 pm

I was wrong, in Florida you have to be 18 to buy a rifle, but 21 for a pistol.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/jason ... index.html

peterlund
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:52 pm
Location: Sverige
Karma: 316
Contact:

Re: Yet another needless mass shooting

#80 Post by peterlund » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm

Condescension wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:34 pm
Octavious wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:46 pm
We're deleting posts now? I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the politics thread was to be run with a more relaxed approach to moderation?
Yes, I posted a paragraph long post between Brad's last two posts where I implied he's brain damaged at the tail end, and the whole thing was deleted. Pretty cool!
I would very interested to read a moderator motivation for deleting that post that Condescension made!!

Who is the moderator that did this?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests