Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1007 of 1184 (895160)
06-10-2022 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1006 by vimesey
06-09-2022 11:28 PM


Re: Biden's speech
… isn't it weird that these mass murderers never seem to choose a baseball bat? I wonder why that is? Do'h.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1006 by vimesey, posted 06-09-2022 11:28 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by vimesey, posted 06-10-2022 4:12 AM Tangle has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 1008 of 1184 (895161)
06-10-2022 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1007 by Tangle
06-10-2022 3:52 AM


Re: Biden's speech
And nobody arms their armies with them either (although in our case, we'd probably go with cricket bats rather than baseball bats if we did).

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2022 3:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1009 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2022 4:25 AM vimesey has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1009 of 1184 (895162)
06-10-2022 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1008 by vimesey
06-10-2022 4:12 AM


Re: Biden's speech
vimesey writes:
although in our case, we'd probably go with cricket bats rather than baseball bats if we did.
Weirdly I was thinking about that last night. It's much easier to see a baseball bat as a weapon than cricket bat. Cricket bats just don't seem to weaponise that easily. I suspect you could do more damage with a golf club. Maybe a pitching wedge?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1008 by vimesey, posted 06-10-2022 4:12 AM vimesey has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1013 by marc9000, posted 06-11-2022 10:56 PM Tangle has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1010 of 1184 (895165)
06-10-2022 9:22 AM


Lethal Nerf Balls
Please, the two of you, stop giving crazy people advice on how to do mass killings. Weaponizing sporting equipment is more dangerous than I think either of you appreciate. We Americans may hear you and … well you know how we like innovation. Our crazies may weaponized their 9 irons and tennis rackets in their next attacks. If that happens the whole gun culture in this country could come tumbling down.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(4)
Message 1011 of 1184 (895166)
06-10-2022 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1005 by marc9000
06-09-2022 8:04 PM


Re: Biden's speech
marc9000 writes:
You need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector. You've blamed the media for many things over the years. I don't think there's any path back to rationality for you.
Sarcasm? It looked more like knee jerk emotion to me. That I easily refuted. You've stated before, as you did later in this thread, that you don't watch television news. How was I to know how informed you are concerning their reach and influence? Sarcasm, seamlessly blended with emotion, is where 90% of anti-gun rhetoric comes from. Usually easily refuted with facts of course, but put fourth shortly after a mass shooting it can cause facts to soar over the heads of emotional gun control advocates.
Like I said, you need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector. Your claims that the news media is responsible for mass murders and that mass murderers are all just copycats using the news media as a "how to" is just you talking. There's no support for these absurd claims, which seem primarily based on your nightly viewings of ABC's TV news program.
In a previous general reply message, you said this;
Most people own guns for emotional reasons, not practical or factual ones.
Really amazing, you take a characteristic of gun controllers, then turn it 180 and apply it to gun owners. Do you think the founders who wrote and approved the second amendment did it strictly on emotion? That people today who are trying to preserve a 240+ year old right do it on emotions?
That you're making an emotional appeal reinforces my point that people own guns for emotional reasons. The facts say that owning a guns places oneself and one's family and friends at greater risk of firearm injury and death, not less.
marc9000 writes:
They're not capable of much originality.
​
Yes, we know you think this. You called them all copycats. Yet somehow they're capable of detailed information gathering, meticulous planning, and very effective plan implementation.
Information gathering, planning, plan implementation, aren't originality. They're copying what past shooters have done, as was meticulously described to them by the news media, over and over, days and weeks beyond the date of the shooting.
Yes, Marc, we know what you believe, but guns are what make mass murders possible.
A potential mass murderer without a gun is just a person. It's the guns.
How about a big strong young man with a baseball bat or a crowbar? Who knows that the only people with a gun is a uniformed police officer, of which he knows there are none within miles. He enters a school - a blow to the head can kill just a s fast as a bullett. How many kids can he kill before he is stopped? If he traps them in a room they can't run. Then he can move on to other rooms, one by one.
People fall in love with guns, not baseball bats or crowbars. They love the ability to merely pull a trigger and watch a hole appear in a target or a tin can explode off a fence post. It's addictive and almost magical.
Their access has been free and open in the U.S. for its entire life of about 240 years. Only in the past 50 years ago did a small segment of the Democrat party come up with things like the Brady law, waiting periods etc. Only in the last 20 or 30 years has the entire Democrat party made disarming the public its top priority. Coincides perfectly with the invention of global warming / climate change. Some of the emotional cries about solutions to climate change aren't possible to ram down the throats of an armed citizenry.
Yeah, right, gun control and climate change, all part of the same conspiracy.
I don't watch TV news. I've never heard of Amy Robach. I think video is the slowest way possible to communicate information and get very little of my information that way.
Then you're very uninformed about what's actually going on, because it's a fact that that's how a huge percentage of the public gets its news, about what they hear. Over-the-air, mainstream news
Are you daft? You think that people who don't get their news from TV are uninformed, and you think this because you believe this is the way most people get their news? Do a Google search. Most people get their news from digital devices. That's where I get mine, and I don't often watch videos, which communicate information too slowly, and if you're looking for certain information you can't effectively skim through them.
As an example of how difficult it is to find specific content in a video, consider this Last Week Tonight video. At one point Oliver mentions the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with gun" myth. Try to find where he says this and see how long it takes. Don't bother if you already understand how difficult it is to find specific information in a video:
You mention ABC World News Tonight a lot, and judging by the content of your messages the rest of your news sources are right wing conspiracy-minded sources. You might want to broaden your choice of news sources, and do more reading and less watching.
You'd know, as one example, how woefully uninformed they are about the on-going disaster at the southern border. I haven't noticed ABC World News Tonight say one word about it in at least 6 months.
You're just making my point for me that maybe TV news isn't the best news source. Written articles, among them those that go into their topics in depth, are preferable. For example, you mention that you don't see enough about the border on ABC World News Tonight, but a simple Google News search brings up a news report about the border from CNN: Blinken says immigration challenges facing US at the southern border are 'beyond anything that anyone has seen before'
You should make an exception right this minute, it's 20 minutes before 8 pm, 20 minutes before Pelosi's hand picked Trump hating committee gets the national spotlight, the January 6th hearings. David Muir said it was a bi-partisan committee. He lied. There are only 2 Republicans on it, both of them voted to impeach Trump.
Gee, I wonder how it happened that the the committee isn't bipartisan. It wouldn't have anything to do with Republican minority leader McCarthy's refusal to participate, would it?
Gun incidents increase the sense of threat from firearms and make it more likely for people to buy guns, but it remains true that a gun in the house places a person as well as that person's family and friends at greater risk of firearm injury and death. Unfortunately, few people have heard this, and fewer believe it.
They have good reason not to believe it. Statistics have been coming in from Australia after they largely disarmed their citizens years ago. While both sides use some of those statistics to bolster their case for or against guns, the one glaring one that many people see is the fact that homes in Australia are now more likely to be broken into, while the residents are home. The intimidation factor of the possibility of getting shot makes burglars a lot more brazen. Not a comforting thought to rural homeowners. Or women, especially if the burglar is a big guy with a crowbar.
I could find nothing online about an increase in brazenness of burglaries in Australia. Perhaps you could find something to support your claim? I'm not supposed to have to make your case for you. Regardless of the truth or falsity of what you're saying, I presume that most Australian's feel the same way I do, that being robbed is far better than being dead.
What I did find was that in the years since the Port Author Massacre and the passing of very strict gun control laws that the rates of murder and suicide have declined in Australia.
I believe a free press is essential to democracy.
More than once at EvC, (maybe in the Climate Change thread, no time to look through it now) I've been told that climate change and steps to control it can only be determined by the scientific community, that the general public isn't educated enough. For that one reason, and many others, I believe an armed citizenry is essential to democracy.
You're basing what you think upon what you were told on an online bulletin board? News flash: politicians are still in charge of our response to climate change. We can only hope that their decisions are informed by science.
I think the Rush Limbaughs and Alex Jones and Glenn Becks and Tucker Carlsons and Sean Hannitys do all that, but they're part of a free press. Though I guess one could argue that they're actually engaged in entertainment, not journalism.
This past Tuesday, on ABC World News Tonight, you know, a half hour show that's supposed to recap major news of the day all around the world, spent the first 20 minutes of the 30 minute show sensationalizing about a shooting that happened 2 weeks ago. I can't watch ABC, CBS and NBC all at once, but it's safe to say they all did something similar. One can easily argue that the mainstream media is engaged in little more than entertainment, entertainment for one political party.
I think conspiracy-style thinking has taken over your mind, but in any case, you've just made yet another argument for avoiding TV news.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by marc9000, posted 06-09-2022 8:04 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1012 by marc9000, posted 06-11-2022 10:35 PM Percy has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1012 of 1184 (895179)
06-11-2022 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1011 by Percy
06-10-2022 9:22 AM


Re: Biden's speech
Like I said, you need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector.
Anyone with the most well oiled, perfectly functioning sarcasm detector would have no clue about the following statement of yours from a recent message here, after spending a short time reading your messages here and in the Trump threads;
I'm not on the left. I'm on the side of life and sanity.
IS THIS SARCASM OR NOT? That's the only question I have, I won't have anymore questions or comments about it.
Your claims that the news media is responsible for mass murders and that mass murderers are all just copycats using the news media as a "how to" is just you talking.
I never said it was COMPLETELY responsible. I'm just saying it contributes to it, in a comparable way to mental illness, lack of school security, police not acting fast enough, or a dozen other things, yes including the availability of guns.
The one problem with gun control is that it will fail for exactly the same reasons that prohibition failed 100 years ago. It failed because the percentage of Americans who wanted to carry on drinking was too high. Just like the percentage of Americans who believe in the Secnod
There's no support for these absurd claims, which seem primarily based on your nightly viewings of ABC's TV news program.
ABC is simply a good indicator of what goes on all around the mainstream media, there's strong evidence that what is reported, sensationalized, and last but not least omitted is all dictated from one central source. All three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC all cut Trump off at almost the same second after he got started on his public address 2 days after the November election. As soon as it was clear he wasn't going to concede at that time.
Here's some more strong evidence, you might remember a month or two ago, when one Frank James committed the New York subway shooting. It happened in the morning. I came in for lunch that day and turned on Fox News, that's when I first heard about it. About all they knew at that time was that he was a heavy set, black man wearing a construction vest. Still at large, practically no pictures of him, most surveillance cameras weren't working. Then on ABC World News Tonight that evening, there still wasn't much more information available yet. I was watching carefully, curious if they'd describe his race. ABC described him as heavy set, wearing a construction vest, maybe another small detail or two, but DID NOT SAY HE WAS BLACK. Even though he was still at large, covering up the identity of black shooters until absolutely necessary to reveal it is apparently more important to ABC than informing the public as fully as possible about an armed, dangerous man on the loose. After watching in disbelief until the end of the half hour program, I did as I usually do, changed to Fox News Primetime. I didn't expect them to make any comments about the cover-up, but they did, they led the show off with it. They have monitors on all networks of course - ABC, CBS , and NBC all covered up the fact that he was black on their evening news programs. So I don't have to monitor much mainstream news, I can watch one and get a pretty good idea of what they all are doing. The Fox News guy was like me; "political correctness is more important than informing the general public as completely as possible?" The next night of course, ABC showed pictures of Frank James after he was caught. No mention of his race however, no questions about the possibility of a hate crime.
marc9000 writes:
Do you think the founders who wrote and approved the second amendment did it strictly on emotion? That people today who are trying to preserve a 240+ year old right do it on emotions?
​
That you're making an emotional appeal reinforces my point that people own guns for emotional reasons.
Those two questions of mine were emotional?? They were actually logical questions.
The facts say that owning a guns places oneself and one's family and friends at greater risk of firearm injury and death, not less.
Not facts, just statistics carefully used by gun controllers. There's no way to figure in, on paper, just what the deterrence factor is that the mere presence of guns has.
Yes, Marc, we know what you believe, but guns are what make mass murders possible.
So are cars rammed into crowds, fertilizer bombs, chemical / biological agents. poisons etc.
People fall in love with guns, not baseball bats or crowbars. They love the ability to merely pull a trigger and watch a hole appear in a target or a tin can explode off a fence post. It's addictive and almost magical.
Are you jealous of them? That they so enjoy something that you don't? Do you take pleasure in attempting to deprive them of something they like? Do you expect them to cheerfully give them up, more cheerfully than the bootleggers and smuggling operations that happened during prohibition?
This might come as a surprise to you, but accurate shooting is hard to do. Unless you've taken some shots at a target yourself, that's 50 or 100 feet away, you have no idea. Many people have seen Marshal Dillon at full gallop on his horse, whip out his 45 and easily drop a bad guy out of his saddle with one shot, 50 feet ahead of him. It's nice entertainment, but that and most shooting we see on westerns and modern day cops and robbers shows isn't reality. If you're 100 feet from a target, the slightest, fraction of an inch movement in the gun barrel during the trigger pull changes the spot the bullet will hit by several feet.
You always try to portray me as a "gun nut", but I'm simply not. As I think I've said before, I never hunt, and haven't fired a gun in years. Every few years, I might gather with some friends in a farm field and do some target shooting. I usually completely miss the target at any kind of distance! And I don't especially care. I'm a terrible shot, but the advantage I have is that I know I'm a terrible shot, and am not going to take any chances at any kind of long range, or if other people are around.
The two main things that contribute to your claim that guns in the home make it more dangerous is; 1) Too many people think they are a good shot when they are not. They think shooting is easy, or they've been watching Marshall Dillon a little too much. And 2) They have the wrong gun for home defense. The NRA can be very helpful to remedy both these problems, they have mountains of resources. But too much hatred for the NRA has been drummed up by Democrats and the news media for them to be taken seriously by enough people.
Did you hear the news story about a sad event at the Cincinnati Zoo 6 years ago? A 3 year old child climbed into the gorilla cage, and danger to the child resulted in the quick decision for a zoo worker to shoot and kill the gorilla.
Harambe - Wikipedia
The child was close to the gorilla, between his legs, when the gorilla was shot. I don't see in this Wiki page, and didn't see any comments anywhere then, about the skill of this shooter. Trust me, he had lots of practice and knowledge about what he was doing. I don't know what distance away he was, but he had to be aware that one little twitch the wrong way and he'd have killed the child. Too many people think what he did was easy. It was not. I would have never attempted it. Too many people might have, who would have had no business trying it.
Good, accurate shooting is a SKILL, one that a lot of people like to challenge themselves with. A sport, like a lot of sports, draws "finatics". The gun culture in the U.S. is no more complicated than that.
I don't watch TV news. I've never heard of Amy Robach. I think video is the slowest way possible to communicate information and get very little of my information that way.
​
marc9000 writes:
Then you're very uninformed about what's actually going on, because it's a fact that that's how a huge percentage of the public gets its news, about what they hear. Over-the-air, mainstream news
​
Are you daft? You think that people who don't get their news from TV are uninformed,
NO, don't be emotional, read it again. I think that you who don't watch TV news are uninformed about much of what the general public knows or does not know.
...and you think this because you believe this is the way most people get their news? Do a Google search. Most people get their news from digital devices. That's where I get mine, and I don't often watch videos, which communicate information too slowly, and if you're looking for certain information you can't effectively skim through them.
I don't think so, most people I know who are much over 40 or 50 don't screw with digital devices. They didn't grow up with them, didn't establish their adult lives with them, and aren't very interested in them. I'm not.
As an example of how difficult it is to find specific content in a video, consider this Last Week Tonight video. At one point Oliver mentions the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with gun" myth. Try to find where he says this and see how long it takes. Don't bother if you already understand how difficult it is to find specific information in a video:
I do understand that. But I also understand the danger of being so impatient to cherry pick, and maybe take something out of its complete context. But I excused myself of that this time - I took about 3 minutes to get all I needed of his complete context, a gun controller repeating the tired old emotional claims that are common and repeated over and over throughout the gun control community. I guarantee I didn't miss a thing.
You mention ABC World News Tonight a lot, and judging by the content of your messages the rest of your news sources are right wing conspiracy-minded sources. You might want to broaden your choice of news sources, and do more reading and less watching.
My Message 967 showed that I watch liberal videos. And in that one instance, it showed that Fox was more likely to broadcast a quote that they didn't like, more so than did ABC. I guarantee that ALL news sources don't like the idea of "restraining sensationalist media coverage." The Fox host that showed that video made no comment about that line of Matthew McConaughey's.
You're just making my point for me that maybe TV news isn't the best news source.
I don't deny that it isn't. But not enough people know that, they depend on it so heavily that they are uninformed.
Written articles, among them those that go into their topics in depth, are preferable. For example, you mention that you don't see enough about the border on ABC World News Tonight, but a simple Google News search brings up a news report about the border from CNN: Blinken says immigration challenges facing US at the southern border are 'beyond anything that anyone has seen before'
I guess you'll tell me that the Hunter Biden laptop story was all over Google just before the election. Apparently, the voters weren't checking Google.
quote
As now pointed out by the Post Millenial, polling showed that almost 20% of Biden voters, or nearly 1 in 5, would not have voted for Joe Biden had they known about the corruption his son, Hunter Biden, was involved in and Joe’s possible role in it:
Poll: Media Suppression of Hunter Biden Laptop Story Helped Make Joe Biden President - Election Central
Gee, I wonder how it happened that the the committee isn't bipartisan. It wouldn't have anything to do with Republican minority leader McCarthy's refusal to participate, would it?
Probably not, he's not the majority leader, anything he attempted would have been rolled over by Pelosi. It actually had to do with Pelosi rejecting Republicans like Jim Jordan, and approving Trump haters like Adam Schiff.
I could find nothing online about an increase in brazenness of burglaries in Australia.
You don't find it logical that home burglars love the idea of gun control, that it wouldn't delight them that their victims are just as likely to be arrested for possessing a gun as they are for breaking and entering?
Perhaps you could find something to support your claim? I'm not supposed to have to make your case for you. Regardless of the truth or falsity of what you're saying, I presume that most Australian's feel the same way I do, that being robbed is far better than being dead.
It wasn't hard;
Robbery (both armed and unarmed), assault, kidnapping, and rape have all increased dramatically in Australis since their 1996 gun ban.
Australia's Gun Ban and Its Effect on Crime
You'll poison the well of course, but keep in mind that he's using information from the Australian Government’s Institute of Criminology.
What I did find was that in the years since the Port Author Massacre and the passing of very strict gun control laws that the rates of murder and suicide have declined in Australia.
And other violence has gone up. How slight did the rates of murder and suicide go down? The other violence has gone up DRAMATICALLY.
You're basing what you think upon what you were told on an online bulletin board?
You're too modest, your bulletin board is a very good representation of what Democrat politicians say, of the commentary on mainstream news sensationalism, commentary on "The View", commentary by AOC, etc.
News flash: politicians are still in charge of our response to climate change. We can only hope that their decisions are informed by science.
I only hope that their decisions are informed by a DEMOCRACY. Votes weren't taken when auto emissions testing was rammed through in my area 20 years ago. They did no good of course, but they'd still be going on if the public was disarmed. An armed public really does have psychiatric impressions on politicians.
I think conspiracy-style thinking has taken over your mind, but in any case, you've just made yet another argument for avoiding TV news.
It took over the minds of the left for over 2 full years, with the Trump-Russian conspiracy lie. There's plenty on both sides.
​

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by Percy, posted 06-10-2022 9:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1015 by Percy, posted 06-13-2022 8:22 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1013 of 1184 (895180)
06-11-2022 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1009 by Tangle
06-10-2022 4:25 AM


Re: Biden's speech
Weirdly I was thinking about that last night. It's much easier to see a baseball bat as a weapon than cricket bat. Cricket bats just don't seem to weaponise that easily. I suspect you could do more damage with a golf club. Maybe a pitching wedge?
Have a nice time with what I say, but woe unto ya if a hostile country invades yours like the Ukraine was invaded. It wouldn't do much good for your government to arm you with guns, as Percy would tell you, you'd be more dangerous with them than without them. You know nothing about how to use them. Your invader would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1009 by Tangle, posted 06-10-2022 4:25 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1014 by Tangle, posted 06-12-2022 4:12 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1016 by Percy, posted 06-13-2022 8:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1014 of 1184 (895181)
06-12-2022 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1013 by marc9000
06-11-2022 10:56 PM


Re: Biden's speech
Marc writes:
Have a nice time with what I say, but woe unto ya if a hostile country invades yours like the Ukraine was invaded.
Well that's even funnier. Who is this hostile country that can invade a NATO country with nothing but hand guns?
btw we have armed forces for that kind of work.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by marc9000, posted 06-11-2022 10:56 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1015 of 1184 (895186)
06-13-2022 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1012 by marc9000
06-11-2022 10:35 PM


Re: Biden's speech
marc9000 writes:
Like I said, you need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector.
Anyone with the most well oiled, perfectly functioning sarcasm detector would have no clue about the following statement of yours from a recent message here, after spending a short time reading your messages here and in the Trump threads;
I'm not on the left. I'm on the side of life and sanity.
IS THIS SARCASM OR NOT? That's the only question I have, I won't have anymore questions or comments about it.
You certainly have a gift for nonsense. You're quoting me from a different message than the one where I said you missed the sarcasm. Given the nature of my comment, no reasonable person would think it sarcastic.
Your claims that the news media is responsible for mass murders and that mass murderers are all just copycats using the news media as a "how to" is just you talking.
I never said it was COMPLETELY responsible.
I never said you did. You only mentioned the media, so I only responded about the media.
I'm just saying it contributes to it, in a comparable way to mental illness, lack of school security, police not acting fast enough, or a dozen other things, yes including the availability of guns.
Perhaps that's what you wish you had said upon reflection, but the reality is that you didn't. The reality is that the media is your favorite whipping boy. You've blamed them for innumerable things over the years.
The one problem with gun control is that it will fail for exactly the same reasons that prohibition failed 100 years ago. It failed because the percentage of Americans who wanted to carry on drinking was too high. Just like the percentage of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment.
Because high murder rates are the result of high gun prevalence, any gun control efforts that reduced the prevalence of guns would be successful.
There's no support for these absurd claims, which seem primarily based on your nightly viewings of ABC's TV news program.
ABC is simply a good indicator of what goes on all around the mainstream media, there's strong evidence that what is reported, sensationalized, and last but not least omitted is all dictated from one central source.
No kidding? What's that "central source" and your evidence for it?
All three networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC all cut Trump off at almost the same second after he got started on his public address 2 days after the November election. As soon as it was clear he wasn't going to concede at that time.
You mean Trump's first speech after the election where he lied about election fraud? I don't know that there's any evidence they broke away "at almost the same second," but if you read TV networks cut away from Trump’s ‘most dishonest speech’ ever you'll see that they broke away to anchors saying that what the president was saying was untrue.
Here's some more strong evidence,...
You haven't presented any evidence yet, let alone strong evidence.
...you might remember a month or two ago, when one Frank James committed the New York subway shooting. It happened in the morning. I came in for lunch that day and turned on Fox News, that's when I first heard about it. About all they knew at that time was that he was a heavy set, black man wearing a construction vest. Still at large, practically no pictures of him, most surveillance cameras weren't working. Then on ABC World News Tonight that evening, there still wasn't much more information available yet. I was watching carefully, curious if they'd describe his race. ABC described him as heavy set, wearing a construction vest, maybe another small detail or two, but DID NOT SAY HE WAS BLACK...etc...
I think you might be racist, Marc. Anyway, still no evidence of anything, just you blaming the media for stuff again.
marc9000 writes:
Do you think the founders who wrote and approved the second amendment did it strictly on emotion? That people today who are trying to preserve a 240+ year old right do it on emotions?
​
That you're making an emotional appeal reinforces my point that people own guns for emotional reasons.
Those two questions of mine were emotional?? They were actually logical questions.
Face it, Marc, you're in love with guns. It's a very emotional issue for you.
The facts say that owning a guns places oneself and one's family and friends at greater risk of firearm injury and death, not less.
Not facts, just statistics carefully used by gun controllers.
I think you must be math challenged.
There's no way to figure in, on paper, just what the deterrence factor is that the mere presence of guns has.
Sure there is. For example, a 2000 study of 26 developed countries found that "where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded." If the presence of guns had a deterrent effect that wouldn't be true. (Harvard Firearms Research Report on Homicide)
Yes, Marc, we know what you believe, but guns are what make mass murders possible.
So are cars rammed into crowds, fertilizer bombs, chemical / biological agents. poisons etc.
Do you think maybe controls, licensing and safety requirements should be put in place for guns the way they are for cars and dangerous substances/viruses/bacteria?
People fall in love with guns, not baseball bats or crowbars. They love the ability to merely pull a trigger and watch a hole appear in a target or a tin can explode off a fence post. It's addictive and almost magical.
Are you jealous of them? That they so enjoy something that you don't? Do you take pleasure in attempting to deprive them of something they like?
Just the opposite, actually. I feel sorry for anyone who has to give up something they love.
Do you expect them to cheerfully give them up, more cheerfully than the bootleggers and smuggling operations that happened during prohibition?
I don't think I underestimate the difficulty of dealing effectively with the gun problem.
This might come as a surprise to you, but accurate shooting is hard to do. Unless you've taken some shots at a target yourself, that's 50 or 100 feet away, you have no idea. Many people have seen Marshal Dillon at full gallop on his horse, whip out his 45 and easily drop a bad guy out of his saddle with one shot, 50 feet ahead of him. It's nice entertainment, but that and most shooting we see on westerns and modern day cops and robbers shows isn't reality. If you're 100 feet from a target, the slightest, fraction of an inch movement in the gun barrel during the trigger pull changes the spot the bullet will hit by several feet.
Would requiring that the gun be registered, the marksman be licensed, and the gun have additional safety features detract from the experience?
You always try to portray me as a "gun nut", but I'm simply not.
Oh, of course not. (Marc's sarcasm detector take note.)
As I think I've said before, I never hunt, and haven't fired a gun in years. Every few years, I might gather with some friends in a farm field and do some target shooting. I usually completely miss the target at any kind of distance! And I don't especially care. I'm a terrible shot, but the advantage I have is that I know I'm a terrible shot, and am not going to take any chances at any kind of long range, or if other people are around.
I don't think there's any requirement on being a gun nut other than putting love of guns ahead of the preciousness of life.
The two main things that contribute to your claim that guns in the home make it more dangerous is; 1) Too many people think they are a good shot when they are not. They think shooting is easy, or they've been watching Marshall Dillon a little too much. And 2) They have the wrong gun for home defense. The NRA can be very helpful to remedy both these problems, they have mountains of resources. But too much hatred for the NRA has been drummed up by Democrats and the news media for them to be taken seriously by enough people.
I see. The gun problem is the Democrats fault because they've made people hate the NRA. (Marc's sarcasm detector take note.)
The evidence tells us that a gun in the home makes people less safe, not more. It has nothing to do with how good a shot people think they are, or that when confronted by a bad guy with a gun that it turns out they bought the wrong dang weapon.
Did you hear the news story about a sad event at the Cincinnati Zoo 6 years ago? A 3 year old child climbed into the gorilla cage, and danger to the child resulted in the quick decision for a zoo worker to shoot and kill the gorilla.
Harambe - Wikipedia
The child was close to the gorilla, between his legs, when the gorilla was shot. I don't see in this Wiki page, and didn't see any comments anywhere then, about the skill of this shooter. Trust me, he had lots of practice and knowledge about what he was doing. I don't know what distance away he was, but he had to be aware that one little twitch the wrong way and he'd have killed the child. Too many people think what he did was easy. It was not. I would have never attempted it. Too many people might have, who would have had no business trying it.
Would requiring that the gun be registered, the zoo worker be licensed, and the gun have additional safety features have prevented the saving of the child?
Good, accurate shooting is a SKILL, one that a lot of people like to challenge themselves with. A sport, like a lot of sports, draws "finatics". The gun culture in the U.S. is no more complicated than that.
Yes, Marc, that's what we've all been doing in this thread is questioning the skill of marksmen. (Marc's sarcasm detector take note.)
I don't watch TV news. I've never heard of Amy Robach. I think video is the slowest way possible to communicate information and get very little of my information that way.
​
Then you're very uninformed about what's actually going on, because it's a fact that that's how a huge percentage of the public gets its news, about what they hear. Over-the-air, mainstream news
​
Are you daft? You think that people who don't get their news from TV are uninformed,
NO, don't be emotional, read it again. I think that you who don't watch TV news are uninformed about much of what the general public knows or does not know.
Let's say I'm totally ignorant "of what the general public knows or does not know." Why do you think that's important or relevant?
And it's not true, because I have you as my example!
...and you think this because you believe this is the way most people get their news? Do a Google search. Most people get their news from digital devices. That's where I get mine, and I don't often watch videos, which communicate information too slowly, and if you're looking for certain information you can't effectively skim through them.
I don't think so, most people I know who are much over 40 or 50 don't screw with digital devices. They didn't grow up with them, didn't establish their adult lives with them, and aren't very interested in them. I'm not.
See More than eight-in-ten Americans get news from digital devices. Not all of it, of course, it's common for there to be a mix of digital devices, cable, over-the-air TV, radio and print. Take a look at this bar chart:
Why do you insist on continually talking through your hat and declaring things true about which you really have no idea?
As an example of how difficult it is to find specific content in a video, consider this Last Week Tonight video. At one point Oliver mentions the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with gun" myth. Try to find where he says this and see how long it takes. Don't bother if you already understand how difficult it is to find specific information in a video:
I do understand that. But I also understand the danger of being so impatient to cherry pick, and maybe take something out of its complete context. But I excused myself of that this time - I took about 3 minutes to get all I needed of his complete context, a gun controller repeating the tired old emotional claims that are common and repeated over and over throughout the gun control community. I guarantee I didn't miss a thing.
I never said or implied that you missed anything. I was merely making clear why I don't often watch videos.
You mention ABC World News Tonight a lot, and judging by the content of your messages the rest of your news sources are right wing conspiracy-minded sources. You might want to broaden your choice of news sources, and do more reading and less watching.
My Message 967 showed that I watch liberal videos.
You haven't been listening. What did I just say about me and watching videos. Your message was not addressed to me, it was mostly a video, even worse it was about an actor (I'm not interested in the political views of entertainers because I don't believe their talent confers any credibility on political matter), so of course I didn't read it.
You're just making my point for me that maybe TV news isn't the best news source.
I don't deny that it isn't. But not enough people know that, they depend on it so heavily that they are uninformed.
But you know TV's not the best source for news and watch it anyway.
I guess you'll tell me that the Hunter Biden laptop story was all over Google just before the election. Apparently, the voters weren't checking Google.
I wouldn't say it was "all over Google", but I did read about it shortly after the repair shop went public in an article listed at Google News.
quote
As now pointed out by the Post Millennial, polling showed that almost 20% of Biden voters, or nearly 1 in 5, would not have voted for Joe Biden had they known about the corruption his son, Hunter Biden, was involved in and Joe’s possible role in it:
Poll: Media Suppression of Hunter Biden Laptop Story Helped Make Joe Biden President - Election Central
You are really fixated on Hunter Biden.
Gee, I wonder how it happened that the the committee isn't bipartisan. It wouldn't have anything to do with Republican minority leader McCarthy's refusal to participate, would it?
Probably not, he's not the majority leader, anything he attempted would have been rolled over by Pelosi. It actually had to do with Pelosi rejecting Republicans like Jim Jordan, and approving Trump haters like Adam Schiff.
You are very confused. The reason the committee isn't bipartisan is because McCarthy refused to participate after Pelosi refused to accept two of the five Republicans he proposed (Jim Jordan and Jim Banks, both of whom voted against certifying the electoral college votes submitted by some states).
I could find nothing online about an increase in brazenness of burglaries in Australia.
You don't find it logical that home burglars love the idea of gun control, that it wouldn't delight them that their victims are just as likely to be arrested for possessing a gun as they are for breaking and entering?
In other words, you made up your claim that burglaries while people were home became more frequent in Australia after gun control. Because you "find it logical."
Perhaps you could find something to support your claim? I'm not supposed to have to make your case for you. Regardless of the truth or falsity of what you're saying, I presume that most Australian's feel the same way I do, that being robbed is far better than being dead.
It wasn't hard;
Robbery (both armed and unarmed), assault, kidnapping, and rape have all increased dramatically in Australis since their 1996 gun ban.
Australia's Gun Ban and Its Effect on Crime
You'll poison the well of course, but keep in mind that he's using information from the Australian Government’s Institute of Criminology.
Your preemptive comment saying I'll poison the well means you know your source is suspect, and it's notable, since the topic is guns, that the headline doesn't mention homicides. Which declined.
What I did find was that in the years since the Port Author Massacre and the passing of very strict gun control laws that the rates of murder and suicide have declined in Australia.
And other violence has gone up. How slight did the rates of murder and suicide go down? The other violence has gone up DRAMATICALLY.
You're taking your suspect source's word that that homicide rate decline was slight. Here's a graph showing the effect on homicides for 10 years after the ban. Just being approximate, the homicide rate was cut in half:
And here's one for suicide, again showing the rate approximately cut in half:
Yeah, your source was great. (Marc's sarcasm detector take note.)
You're basing what you think upon what you were told on an online bulletin board?
You're too modest, your bulletin board is a very good representation of what Democrat politicians say, of the commentary on mainstream news sensationalism, commentary on "The View", commentary by AOC, etc.
Again, you're basing what you think upon what you were told on an online bulletin board? You're just a smorgasbord of questionable sources of information.
News flash: politicians are still in charge of our response to climate change. We can only hope that their decisions are informed by science.
I only hope that their decisions are informed by a DEMOCRACY.
You're again not making any sense. The politicians in office are elected in this country, so of course any decisions are "informed by a DEMOCRACY", as you put it.
What's important is that when it comes to scientific matters that the decisions of our elected officials be informed by science. That the prior administration was so antagonistic toward science is why the pandemic death rate in the US was the highest of the developed world.
Votes weren't taken when auto emissions testing was rammed through in my area 20 years ago.
You're against auto emissions testing? No surprise, I guess.
They did no good of course,...
Are you daft? Why do you think that? The air became immensely cleaner after the Clean Air Act.
...but they'd still be going on if the public was disarmed.
Not all states require emissions testing, and I guess Kentucky is one of them. Apparently it was only required in three counties for about five years in the early 2000's anyway, but it's crazy that there was only one testing station in each county. That's really nuts. Checking online, in the large town nearest us there are nearly 70 locations that perform emissions testing.
Parenthetically, there's some talk that because newer cars have built-in internal emissions checks that cause a check-engine light to go on, and because in many states you can't pass inspection with that light on, that actual emissions testing during inspections may no longer make sense.
An armed public really does have psychiatric impressions on politicians.
Somehow your mind is drawing a link between an armed citizenry and Kentucky ceasing its auto emission testing program? Is there anything too crazy for you to believe? Did you ever consider that promising to end the emission testing program might have won votes, especially given how difficult Kentucky had made it to get a vehicle's emissions tested?
I think conspiracy-style thinking has taken over your mind, but in any case, you've just made yet another argument for avoiding TV news.
It took over the minds of the left for over 2 full years, with the Trump-Russian conspiracy lie. There's plenty on both sides.
The Mueller report details the Trump/Russia links, concluding that they were more fellow travelers with the same goals who didn't actually conspire together, but making it clear why the appearance of conspiracy was so strong, to the point where once Trump fired Comey it forced the Trump Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate.
There are people from all parts of the political spectrum who have a weakness for conspiracy theories built upon nothing but fantasies, but the suspicion that there was something going on between the Trump campaign and Russia was not one of them.
But you seem to see conspiracies built upon fantasies lurking around every corner.
--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1012 by marc9000, posted 06-11-2022 10:35 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1018 by marc9000, posted 06-14-2022 8:31 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1016 of 1184 (895187)
06-13-2022 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1013 by marc9000
06-11-2022 10:56 PM


Re: Biden's speech
marc9000 writes:
It wouldn't do much good for your government to arm you with guns, as Percy would tell you...
Percy wouldn't tell you that because he thinks that that's pretty much what government's do for defense these days. You just left out the part where they enlist you into the military and provide you training.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by marc9000, posted 06-11-2022 10:56 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1017 of 1184 (895193)
06-14-2022 12:49 PM


i guess i should wait
when i got here on the new server it said i was admin!

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1018 of 1184 (895212)
06-14-2022 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by Percy
06-13-2022 8:22 PM


Re: Biden's speech
Just a few points;
The reality is that the media is your favorite whipping boy. You've blamed them for innumerable things over the years.
Just like law abiding citizens with guns are your favorite whipping boy?
you'll see that they broke away to anchors saying that what the president was saying was untrue.
Anchors make this decision, for a sitting president? Did they ever chop off Obama, or Biden, for saying untrue things? (Democrat presidents never lie, do they?)
Do you think maybe controls, licensing and safety requirements should be put in place for guns the way they are for cars and dangerous substances/viruses/bacteria?
No because cars and other substances aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Just the opposite, actually. I feel sorry for anyone who has to give up something they love.
I'll take your word for that, but you're in the minority. Most gun controllers, "progressives" get their rocks off giving people orders and depriving them of their freedoms. History is full of examples, and a reading of U.S. founding documents tells me that the founders knew that too.
Would requiring that the gun be registered, the zoo worker be licensed, and the gun have additional safety features have prevented the saving of the child?
Yes, because there would have been NO GUN! When the zoo worker would have approached the gun permit czar, he would have been asked "What do you need a gun at a zoo for? These are tame animals in captivity. PERMIT DENIED! Government agents are often not near as good at knowing what the general public needs as well as the general public does.
The more government requirements there are for skilled marksmen, the fewer skilled marksmen there are going to be.
The zoo would have called the police, and everyone would have watched the child slowly die before the police got there.
Yes, Marc, that's what we've all been doing in this thread is questioning the skill of marksmen.
No, you've been mocking the "magical" craziness of gun nuts.
Let's say I'm totally ignorant "of what the general public knows or does not know." Why do you think that's important or relevant?
That you have to ask that, makes it clear that you have no appreciation of the freedoms you enjoy in the U.S.
You are really fixated on Hunter Biden.
Because THAT is how the election was stolen. The cover-up by the mainstream news and big tech of the unprecedented corruption that went on during the 8 years of the Biden vice presidency was the tipping point that got him elected.
But you seem to see conspiracies built upon fantasies lurking around every corner.
It goes equally both ways. I'm just a little surprised that the left constantly accuses the right of conspiracy theories, while promoting so many of their own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by Percy, posted 06-13-2022 8:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1019 by xongsmith, posted 06-16-2022 12:01 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1024 by ringo, posted 06-16-2022 11:46 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1032 by Percy, posted 06-17-2022 10:59 AM marc9000 has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(3)
Message 1019 of 1184 (895226)
06-16-2022 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1018 by marc9000
06-14-2022 8:31 PM


Re: Biden's speech
marc9k ends with:
I'm just a little surprised that the left constantly accuses the right of conspiracy theories, while promoting so many of their own.
Can you name one? Just one?

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by marc9000, posted 06-14-2022 8:31 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1020 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2022 6:04 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 1021 by marc9000, posted 06-16-2022 6:15 AM xongsmith has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 1020 of 1184 (895227)
06-16-2022 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1019 by xongsmith
06-16-2022 12:01 AM


Re: Biden's speech
I can guess what he'll say. It's the usual tactics of the wannabe fascists. They simply point to one of the fully evidenced arguments put forward by decent people, that refutes one of their lines of propaganda, and call it a conspiracy theory.
They know they can't refute the evidence, but they also know that as long as their audience is unwilling or unable to review and understand the evidence (which in general they are), they will agree it's a conspiracy theory.
The supporters of fascists will always swallow lies that paint them as superior to another section of society. Hence the wholesale swallowing of lies as risible as the children-eating Democrats. All our wannabe fascist will do is point to evidenced arguments and call them conspiracy theories. He won't convince us, but that's not his goal - his goal is to add to the sheer volume of lies that enable totalitarianism.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by xongsmith, posted 06-16-2022 12:01 AM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1022 by marc9000, posted 06-16-2022 6:16 AM vimesey has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1021 of 1184 (895228)
06-16-2022 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1019 by xongsmith
06-16-2022 12:01 AM


Re: Biden's speech
Can you name one? Just one?
Why no, you got me, it would be like trying to eat one Lay's potato chip!
Why should I write them all down?
The A to Z of Things Trump Could and Should Have Been Impeached For
There are tons more, you and your green dot providers should try a simple search.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by xongsmith, posted 06-16-2022 12:01 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1025 by xongsmith, posted 06-16-2022 1:17 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1026 by AZPaul3, posted 06-16-2022 3:05 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 1033 by Percy, posted 06-17-2022 11:16 AM marc9000 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024