Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 728 of 1184 (849501)
03-11-2019 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 726 by Percy
03-10-2019 8:12 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
Are you daft?
Are you crazy?
Are you nuts?
It has to do with you being certifiable.
I hope you realize you're being an ass.
Are you nuts?
You are seriously crazy.
You are very seriously crazy.
You're scaremongering.
Hmmm, you must not agree that Jimmy Connors style of play was good to watch.
Given that a quick search reveals I discussed unintended consequences as far back as 2008 (and probably earlier, but that's the first reference I found with a quick search), no, you did not introduce me to unintended consequences.
That is a surprise, because your opinions on gun control make it clear to me that you are not informed about them, what they could be for gun control, or what their historical significance is in other similar matters.
You accused people of having two primary goals in life: be as idle as possible and be entertained. I asked how it's anybody's business how people spend their time. You didn't say anything about being a burden on society. Is that your true concern, of people becoming a burden on society? What are you thinking of, specifically, that has you concerned.
1)An increasing laziness in the U.S. One thing I have seen up close and personal, not from myself but from someone close to me, is how recreational drug use can completely destroy a persons pride in themselves, can make them not care at all what a burden they become to their relatives and society in general.
2)Illegal immigrants coning here with no education, no knowledge of the English language, looking to get citizenship for their children if not for themselves, and find out how much free stuff they can get.
I don't think anyone wants our tax dollars paying people to sit around.
Democrats do, if they can get their votes.
House votes to support illegal immigrant voting in local elections - Washington Times
Whose idle lifestyles are you talking about?
In addition to illegals that the Democrat house loves, drug addicts and lazy people. They really do exist in the U.S.
Are you crazy? Unless you're breaking laws or being a general nuisance, why would anyone care how active you are?
A significant number of people get jealous of other peoples' success, to the extent they'd like to "get even" somehow, with them. You didn't know that? It's not hard to tell that 90% of Trump hatred is about jealousy of him, he's succeeded at just about everything he's done. He shows more energy than many people half his age.
We're all for free markets, but let us not be so naive to believe that free markets are the only solution or are corruption-free, or to believe that government cannot be a solution and must be more corrupt than free markets. Solving our dependence upon fossil fuels most likely involves a partnership between government and private industry.
I understand that, but you and I wouldn't agree on what the balance between the two would be. Free markets police corruption within themselves far better than government activity and mandates. Sure we have elections, but weeding out corruption in government bureaucracies takes far longer than free people making free choices in markets.
You are wrong that government mandates cannot help reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels. Government mandated fuel economy standards and pollution standards are a couple examples. And here's another, though unrelated to fossil fuels: government mandates were instrumental in making cars safer.
There are still a lot of monster 4 door pickups and SUV's running around today, and they wouldn't be nearly as numerous if the government wouldn't have legislated out full size, and even some mid-size cars back in the 1980's.
But yes, government mandates did improve fuel standards, and safety standards. But what was the cost? A moderately equipped car in 1975 (the first year for CAFE standards, cost about $5000. Today, a similarly equipped car costs about $35,000. Personal income hasn't increased seven-fold in that time. So now, fewer lower middle income people can afford new cars.
So you're against Social Secure, Medicare and Medicaid? Can I assume you won't be filing for Medicare next year, or for Social Security ever?
Since the government has helped itself to somewhere around $100,000 of my money for Social Security over my entire career, I have little choice but to try to get some of it back. I have no other retirement, I'm going to have to live to my mid-seventies to before I even break even. I intend to work as long as I'm physically able. I try to live a healthy lifestyle. I don't depend on the government for health.
I actually like the idea of Social Security, life for the elderly had to be a lot tougher in the 1920's and before. To have a certain amount to depend on until one dies, since no one knows exactly when they're going to die, works well. If memory serves though, 2042 is when I last heard it will bust. That's what I don't like about it, government can't manage it properly.
Your "liberal/wrong, conservative/right" attitude is leading you astray again and again.
Your liberal/right, conservative/wrong attitude does the same to you, only in a much more anti-Constitutional way.
The US is not 3rd in murders throughout the world. It's more like 97.
That could be, but statistics do vary from website to website. But one thing is sure, gun violence in the U.S. isn't a widespread problem throughout the entire U.S. area, it's an increasing problem in bigger, usually Democrat run cities. It's human behavior problem within those cities, not the problem of the U.S. population at large.
Socialism in American politics only means programs that help people, not state ownership of business and industry.
So it's completely impossible for the U.S. to incrementally move into state ownership of business and industry? Do you have a source that assures you of this?
Ban fossil fuels? Are you nuts? No one wants to ban fossil fuels.
So you've been missing what Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has been saying? How about Greenpeace?
We’ve got 10 years to ditch fossil fuel cars – or it’s game over for the climate - Greenpeace International
You are seriously crazy. No one wants to seize old car engines. There's not enough of them to matter.
THEN WHAT IS THE PLAN TO "DEFEAT CLIMATE CHANGE"? Every Democrat's main talking point constantly moans and groans about climate change, yet no one seems to ask them, and they never say, just what the list looks like that they're compiling to defeat it. It's said that "human behavior" causes climate change, so what else is there for the government to do, other than CONTROL HUMAN BEHAVIOR? I know, they can't say because they don't know yet. They won't know until they get the presidency back. And then, it will largely depend on how successful they've been with a TOTAL GUN BAN. Makes it much easier and less messy for them to control human behavior.
You are very seriously crazy. An armed populace had nothing to do with the 21st amendment or the repeal of the double nickel. Where do you get this stuff?
The same place that a lot of reasonable people get the "stuff" about how the mere presence of guns in a society can be a crime deterrent.
You're scaremongering.
Pot, meet kettle. Shrieks for gun control and global warming aren't scaremongering? Did you hear about the school children that met with Diane Feinstein a week or two ago, demanding to know what she was going to do about climate change? These poor kids are scared to death, they actually have it implied to them that snowstorms in February, tornados and hurricanes etc. are all recent things, that they never used to happen 30, 40 or 50 years ago. David Muir of ABC World News Tonight breathlessly reports on snowstorms in February, and the associated car wrecks as if this is the first time he's seen them! It's amazing to watch him do his liberal dances.
Yet did the little kids ask Di Fi about the upcoming SS bust? Of course not, they know nothing about it! It's not taught to them.
The problem for your position is that you can find no evidence for it.
There's tons of evidence for it. I think it's "Media Research Center" that documents the number of minutes they spend disparaging Republicans, while trying to make Democrats look good. Maybe in all your spare time you could check that out. I don't have time tonight.
Why is that natural?
I explained it, it creates better ratings.
What is Fox News? What is the Washington Examiner? Are they unnatural?
They are the same thing that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glen Beck, many others are, they are a free market creation by a biased, corrupt mainstream media.
Could we get back to gun control now?
If you want to keep it so narrowly focused on little more than, "less guns, less crime" and practically nothing else, there's not much more to say on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 726 by Percy, posted 03-10-2019 8:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 03-12-2019 7:57 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 731 by Percy, posted 03-13-2019 6:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 732 of 1184 (849544)
03-13-2019 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by Percy
03-12-2019 7:57 PM


Re: Are you sane and stable? How do you know?
What do any of my characterizations of and reactions to your nonsense have to do with whether I enjoyed watching Connors style of play?
It was just a cute little way I had of grouping your insults against me all in one place. Makes it obvious to anyone paying attention how you probably violate forum rule #10 more than any other poster here.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative.
GREAT HORNY TOADS, I ALMOST FORGOT THAT! You're just Mr. Neutral, just so open minded about so many things! You've told me that before, I must have believed it then!!
Third, while digressions are fine, if you really have nothing left to say about the thread's topic then you really should consider tailing off your participation in this one.
That does seem like a pretty good idea, since gun control is going nowhere for at least the next two years. My state just started allowing concealed carry without a permit. 16 states now have it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by Percy, posted 03-12-2019 7:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by Percy, posted 03-14-2019 10:16 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 924 of 1184 (894936)
06-03-2022 8:26 AM


Biden's speech
It's always the same after every mass shooting, this time, ramped up more than ever before. Today, tomorrow, next week, before new gun control laws are passed, gun sales will set new records, and there will be more guns in the U.S. than ever before. This is how we say "ENUF!"??
It would be nice to try something different, that should be obvious to everyone, but we can't. The ratings seeking, profit mad, shooting recruiting news media won't allow discussions of it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 926 by ringo, posted 06-03-2022 11:54 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 928 of 1184 (894997)
06-05-2022 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 926 by ringo
06-03-2022 11:54 AM


Re: Biden's speech
Mass shootings in the US happen so often that it isn't news. They shouldn't even be mentioned in the news. Maybe a running body count a couple of times a year.
All of the recent shootings today are COPYCAT shootings. They don't come up with the idea to do it on their own, they're inspired by the publicity of past shootings. If news was only reported, and not sensationalized, there would be far fewer senseless mass shootings.
"The media loves mass shootings", is a phrase that's been stated more than once, and there's evidence for it. One example; David Muir, ABC's weekday evening news anchor, (off on weekends) always seems glad to interrupt his weekends and bolt to the scene when there's a shooting on Friday or Saturday, to shove microphones in the faces of grieving friends / relatives and ask them how they feel, usually indirectly about how they feel about the second amendment and white Republicans. If he's so sad, why doesn't he just stay home and let the weekend reporters do that job?
It's often said that the U.S. founders couldn't imagine any weapon beyond the muskets of their day. That's true, but they also couldn't imagine the circus that's today's news media. Muir gets "between $5 and $7 million per year" in salary. Chris Cuomo got $6 million per year, before he was fired by CNN for his lies and corruption. The $6 million per year figure seems to be pretty common for popular news anchors and commentators, I'm sure it is at Fox News as well. Their lavish newsrooms / desks couldn't be more elaborate. Is this what the founders had in mind? It's a stretch of course to say that they "recruit" school shootings, but they don't seem to be concerned with the possibility of contributing to them. They'll say "we're just filling a free market demand, people have their morbid sense of curiosity about these things. That's what tobacco companies said, "people willingly buy our product - not our fault if they get cancer.
Who can tell what goes on the minds of mass shooters, but it can't hurt their ego when the news media points fingers at others besides the shooter, "The teacher left a door unlocked!!!! The police didn't respond correctly!!! The school wasn't fortified enough!!! The public has too many guns!!!!"
The news media is out for ratings, and profits, concern about any inspiration they have for future shootings comes in a distant second. Tobacco products have always been excise TAXED, how about a windfall profits tax on the news media everytime there is a mass shooting? It would be complicated to implement, but it would be possible. They could obviously afford it. Or maybe the networks themselves, maybe trim Muir's salary down to a paltry $5 million a year, he should be able to survive on that, and tell him to STAY HOME whenever there's a mass shooting? Biden delights in saying over and over that the second amendment is not absolute, another Democrat politician recently said the Supreme Courts has stated many times that the second amendment is not absolute. I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever said anything similar about the First Amendment? I guess we'll never know, the news media is in charge of public discussion, and everyone from Sean Hannity to Rachel Maddow and everyone in between won't discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 926 by ringo, posted 06-03-2022 11:54 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 929 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2022 4:05 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 930 by AZPaul3, posted 06-05-2022 4:17 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 938 by Percy, posted 06-06-2022 8:07 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 931 of 1184 (895006)
06-05-2022 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 929 by Tangle
06-05-2022 4:05 PM


Re: Biden's speech
It what warped world is the reporting of a mass murder not sensational?
In plane crashes, bus crashes, weather disasters, Andrew Cuomo's nursing home deaths, many other things, often with far more than 21 deaths, mainstream evening news reports don't continue to harp on it for weeks after the event, showing pictures of victims, interviews with survivors, videos of funerals, lists of dreams the dead victims had, political demands to grow the government.
There is a difference between sensationalizing and reporting. Gossiping and reporting. Pictures of the shooter, the smallest details of unlocked doors and police responses, do nothing but cause trouble when constantly shoved in the faces of the general public. Those kinds of things should be investigated privately. If the news media wasn't recruiting more shootings of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 929 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2022 4:05 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 935 by Tangle, posted 06-06-2022 3:23 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 932 of 1184 (895007)
06-05-2022 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 930 by AZPaul3
06-05-2022 4:17 PM


Re: Biden's speech
There are too many guns in this society and they need to be curbed hard.
Pass laws and they will vanish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 930 by AZPaul3, posted 06-05-2022 4:17 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 933 by xongsmith, posted 06-06-2022 12:52 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 934 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2022 1:15 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 948 of 1184 (895068)
06-07-2022 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 938 by Percy
06-06-2022 8:07 AM


Re: Biden's speech
If it's the media's fault then we should be thankful that the mass murders are coming so fast and furious. This gives the media too little time to report and sensationalize each one. Just as a media team takes off for Philadelphia to sensationalize a mass murder there another happens in Chattanooga, so they divert there, and then another happens in Saginaw, Michigan, so they divert there, and in the end they never get anywhere, just fly around in the sky. Let us thank God for enough mass murders that before the media can properly sensationalize one mass murder another happens.
Divert?? Too little time?? This isn't the early 20th century, they have things called video cameras now, they have multiple crews that can spend all the time they want at any location. Muir's back at his lavish news desk, showing the same Uvalde videos over and over again. Last evening, he talked live with his reporter Matt Gutman, who is still there with his entourage of camara men. Another ABC reporter, Amy Robach, is apparently full time on this indefinitely. She interviewed one of the teachers who was injured but survived, he's furious with police and wants to sue. I watched it, nothing bad at all said about the shooter. Muir, last night, told us to be sure to catch "Good Morning America", that there would be plenty more of her interview, and there was, they started the show out with 15 minutes of the drama.
After they moved on from that to more gun control and climate terror and JANUARY 6th!!!!!!!, I switched to Fox News. Got there just in time to see a recent taped interview with Kyle Rittenhouse. He has to have armed security, can't get a job etc. Then they showed a montage of a half dozen ABC and other mainstream reporters calling him a white supremacist terrorist, and other names, back before and during his trial. He's going to sue and he'll win, similar to how Nick Sandman did. But it will be a tiny percentage of what the mainstream media can afford to lose, and it won't change how they operate one bit.
They couldn't imagine the technology, but of course they could imagine a media like today's, even much worse, because they already had a media like ours. In fact, more newspapers and pamphlets were extremely vicious back then, with more Alex Jones and Glenn Beck equivalents.
Sorry, they did not have a media like ours. They did not have reporters making the equivalent of the $6 million per year (in those days dollars), because advertising and political war chests were nothing compared to today. They could very well have been "vicious", but they couldn't sensationalize much, because they didn't have today's technology, or funding. Today we have no way of knowing how much of Muir's $6 million is paid through advertising, and how much comes from the Democrat party. It's the same at Fox News of course, I'm not favoring Fox in what I'm saying here.
Who can tell what goes on the minds of mass shooters? You, obviously. You just told us they're all copycats.
That wasn't an analyzation of their minds, it's an observation of how they are, mentally disturbed, sick, stupid. They're not capable of much originality. But they don't have to be very smart to get around gun laws.
Except for people sounding the alarm about guns, those are all conservative excuses for why guns are not the problem. It's everybody else's fault. For some, like you, it's the media's fault, but you blame everything on the media. For others it's that there wasn't enough security. For others there were failures of procedure. Some think it's a mental health issues. Others think we need more red flag laws. Some blame American culture. But guns? Few conservatives blame the guns. They like guns, so they can't blame them.
It's not logical to blame hardware, simple hardware by today's standards, for actions of people. You don't think those other things you mentioned deserve exploration? Couldn't some additional money, from new taxes on the news media, be put to good use by exploring those things further? Wouldn't you on the left welcome my idea of growing the government in this instance? I'm not talking about taxing basic reports on the first day of these events, I'm talking about extended stays by media entourages, by week after week emotional interviews by reporters like Amy Robach.
The Supreme Court has said plenty about the First Amendment right to free speech. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (incitement). You can't defame people, as Deep vs. Heard recently demonstrated. You can't use fighting words or make threats (incitement again).
And you don't think the media is doing the equivalent of that today, by what they did to Nick Sandman, to Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Amy Robach frenzy they're stirring up for profit and ratings?
The government's determination to continue the Vietnam war was doomed once the media began focusing attention on what was really happening in Vietnam. Now the media is focusing attention on what is really happening with guns, and you, liking guns, are understandably unhappy about it.
Yes, because there's no question that 18 to 21 year olds are now buying up guns in record numbers, some of them future shooters, before new laws take effect. Common sense tells me that, though the news would never report it. Unhappy because Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the country, and the most shooting records continue. Unhappy because gun controllers would respond to that by saying the guns are brought to Chicago from other areas of the U.S., and so need to be banned everywhere in the U.S. Unhappy by realizing that new guns would then pour into the U.S. over our wide open southern border.
If you're against ANY exploration of what can be done to reign in today's corrupt news media, that they're completely untouchable and can do anything they want to exploit human nature's more unfortunate characteristics, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by Percy, posted 06-06-2022 8:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1002 by Percy, posted 06-09-2022 8:52 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 967 of 1184 (895102)
06-07-2022 9:13 PM


Matthew McConaughey
Parts of his 9 minute vid were played on both ABC World News Tonight and Jesse Watters "Prime Time" show on Fox News. At the 2:15 point;
quote
We need to "restrain sensationalist media coverage".
Fox News played that part, ABC did not.

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


(1)
Message 1005 of 1184 (895158)
06-09-2022 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1002 by Percy
06-09-2022 8:52 AM


Re: Biden's speech
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sure, except that that you're only proposing these things as a way of distracting attention from the real problem: guns.
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.
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. 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 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.
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 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1002 by Percy, posted 06-09-2022 8:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1006 by vimesey, posted 06-09-2022 11:28 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1011 by Percy, posted 06-10-2022 9:22 AM marc9000 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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 1022 of 1184 (895229)
06-16-2022 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1020 by vimesey
06-16-2022 6:04 AM


Re: Biden's speech
You'd better jump in there and dance for him!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1020 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2022 6:04 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2022 6:49 AM marc9000 has replied

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


Message 1027 of 1184 (895239)
06-16-2022 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by vimesey
06-16-2022 6:49 AM


Re: Biden's speech
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 ?
That's EXACTLY what Christians have been asking the scientific community for 163 years. (It's been 163 years, since the atheist bible, Origin of Species, came out.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by vimesey, posted 06-16-2022 6:49 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by xongsmith, posted 06-16-2022 10:16 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 1031 by vimesey, posted 06-17-2022 1:23 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024