collapse

* Recent Posts

Chicago bars for Fri game by Galway Eagle
[Today at 01:20:04 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Uncle Rico
[Today at 01:19:39 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by TAMU, Knower of Ball
[Today at 01:04:10 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Uncle Rico
[Today at 01:03:27 PM]


Tyler Kolek's "legacy" by Newsdreams
[Today at 12:37:27 PM]


NC State by Sturgeon General Warrior
[Today at 12:34:46 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by Oldgym
[Today at 12:14:42 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Another shooting  (Read 22243 times)

rocket surgeon

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3652
  • NA of course
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #175 on: November 18, 2017, 10:48:35 PM »
  waiting for the cries for william JEFFERSON clinton to change his name...oh wait, bubba works ;D

   better not be a statue in the works
don't...don't don't don't don't

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #176 on: November 18, 2017, 10:55:47 PM »
Your whole diatribe (typical mostly cut and paste) is fatally flawed.  It assumes that those voting right or left are doing so because of the constituents and not because they are voting their free independent mind. 

For the record, it was not a diatribe ... yes, I copied most of the comments from the link above.  But I guess that was lost on you.

And second, he made an excellent point about the two types of representation was could have, proxies or those that exercise independent judgment.  Then he quotes Edmund Burke and the Federalist papers that tackled this exact issue.

But all of this went completely over your head because you work with one moron that made stupid statements that are irrelevant to this entire conversation.

So, go back and read it again, it is actually very good .. better than anything you have ever written here. 

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #177 on: November 18, 2017, 10:58:37 PM »
I never said we cannot stop all of them. I reject that belief. Other countries have been mass shooting free for years. We can figure it out to. What you may have mistaken for me saying that was that the goal of my suggestions wasn't necessarily to stop all mass shootings tomorrow, but to slowly eradicate our country's unhealthy obsession with guns and violence with the eventual goal eliminating all mass shootings. There is nothing that can be done to eliminate mass shootings overnight, not even a total ban. It will take a culture change which takes time. Passing stricter gun control laws can help that culture change.

Two things with this. First, thank you. This is the first time you've suggested something to help end mass shootings. So far you've just called everyone else's ideas stupid without contributing any possible solutions. I'm glad you are now trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

2nd, why do you assume I don't want a total gun ban? I absolutely do. But that can't happen in today's political climate and gun obsessed culture. So in the meantime, I will take smaller measures that can help limit the damage that guns can do and help change that culture over time. Eventually, I hope we get to a place as a country where we look at guns and say "You know what, we don't need these. In fact, we don't even want these." I know that seems like a crazy/impossible vision at the point, but I believe it could one day happen. When seat belts where introduced, there were plenty who vowed never to embrace them. Now it is something that most people don't even thinking about. Big tobacco seemed like a permanent part of our culture but they are losing more and more power every day. The battle over guns will be more difficult than either of these, but I think it will happen one day.

To further explain my comments above, I don't want to see the government and take everyone's guns. That is part of our Bill of Rights and that shouldn't be changed unless it is the true will of the people. I want us to get to a place where we the people ask the government to take our guns because they are no longer wanted or needed.

Sounds like the slippery slope argument.  Little by little, step-by-step

MU82 is going to make fun of you.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22724
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #178 on: November 18, 2017, 11:38:14 PM »

And I'll put you down as "yes" to tearing down Columbus, Jefferson, and Washington.

And I'll put you down as an easily duped guy who isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

Sounds like the slippery slope argument.  Little by little, step-by-step

MU82 is going to make fun of you.

Nope. I don't make fun of nice guys. TAMU doesn't instigate for the sole purpose of instigating, and argue for the sole purpose of arguing. He also doesn't think he knows everything about every subject. Finally, he didn't tell me to stay away from AAPL when it was at $90/share!
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #179 on: November 19, 2017, 12:58:54 AM »
For the record, it was not a diatribe ... yes, I copied most of the comments from the link above.  But I guess that was lost on you.

And second, he made an excellent point about the two types of representation was could have, proxies or those that exercise independent judgment.  Then he quotes Edmund Burke and the Federalist papers that tackled this exact issue.

But all of this went completely over your head because you work with one moron that made stupid statements that are irrelevant to this entire conversation.

So, go back and read it again, it is actually very good .. better than anything you have ever written here.

None of it went over my head.  I explicitly stated that you just copied and pasted like usual.  No sense in trying to discuss anything with you.  I'll go back to ignoring you.  Cheers.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22057
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #180 on: November 19, 2017, 01:08:25 AM »
Sounds like the slippery slope argument.  Little by little, step-by-step

MU82 is going to make fun of you.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case.  If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground,  that is illogical.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6583
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #181 on: November 19, 2017, 09:14:22 AM »
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case.  If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground,  that is illogical.

Seriously, don't bother with him.  He can't comprehend that his arguments consistently use logical fallacies.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22724
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #182 on: November 19, 2017, 09:27:29 AM »
It's a start.

http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/south-carolina-s-u-s-sen-tim-scott-backs-bill/article_a9fa403e-cae7-11e7-ae77-876203680660.html

The skinny: There is a bipartisan bill to close the "Charleston loophole" that allowed a terrorist to buy the gun that he used to kill 9 parishioners at a church 2 years ago. It surprisingly has won the support of Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who had repeatedly opposed any kind of new gun regulations, including the bipartisan bill that was floated after the Newton massacre.

If enough legislators hire private detectives to help them find their spines so they can overcome great NRA pressure to actually pass this, no, this law would not stop every gun crime in the future history of man. But it might stop 10 or 3 or 1. It is a logical law that falls under a "it's the least they can do" heading, and it's a start.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #183 on: November 19, 2017, 09:45:33 AM »
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy in this case.  If you believe in a gun control measure but don't vote for it because you are afraid to give any ground,  that is illogical.

And we are back to square one ...  I'm in favor of ...

Getting rid of bump stocks (they are largely gone because virtually no one sells them anymore, regulation will follow)

Streamlining the background checks by aggregating the databases and fixing the mess that is the no-fly and terror watch list. The problem here is the ACLU and other first amendment defenders.  The idea of the Government putting together a "mentally unstable" list frightens them, as it should.  What is the definition that gets one on the list?  How do they get off?  What protections can the government ensure that landlords, insurance companies, and employers will not use this list to screen?  These are serious issues.

Easing the restrictions for conceal carry.

------

What I do not think will work in a gun culture with hundreds of millions of guns already in society

Restriction on "assault weapons."  The biggest problem here is the definition.  Again, "assault weapons" were banned in 1994.  The ban was repealed in 2004.  Why?  Becuase the definition is impossible to determine.  They are not semi-automatic like GooMU and MU03eng suggested.  That is the vast majority of guns, and virtually every handgun, and has been for many decades.  (most of my shotguns are semi-automatic).  "Assault weapons" is just a primal scream ... "do something!!!!".  See the closed threads, I posted numerous of identical hunting guns that were not "assault weapons."

Meaningless product bans.  The bump-stock is stupid because it largely does not work.  The gun overheats and jams quickly.  They were not designed to fire that quickly.  That is why the vegas shooter brought over a dozen guns with bump-stocks, he know they would work for a minute or two and then jam.  So he would pick up another gun.  Lastly, the bump stock was only approved for sale in 2010 so there are not many in circulation.  So go ahead and ban but understand it will not change much if anything.  Again, they are gone now.

Large magazine ban ... that is a different issue than bump-stocks.  First, they have been around for 100 years and many millions are in circulation.  So a ban is ineffective.  Second, they actually serve a useful purpose for shooters in a range.  Third, most gun experts and those that understand the issue will acknowledge, after a few days of practice quickly changing 10 round magazines is just as lethal as a 30 round magazine.  So, banning them does not make the world safer from mass shooters.

Bringing back waiting periods.  We had them before and got rid of them because of the instant background check.  The idea was a "cooling off" period.  That turned out to be wrong.  The number of people that committed a crime five days after legally buying guns was extremely rare.  It was offset by people that had to wait for a gun for protection.  So for every case that someone bought a gun and committed a crime in less than five days, one could point to an abused wife that was killed or severaly hurt because she had to wait five days for a gun.  Point is, this just punishes legal gun owners and does nothing to make society safer.

Everything else you suggested is already the case.  Your contention that we should take little steps sounds like punishing legal gun owners for having nothing to do with these crimes.  This puts you in the camp of the hysterical, Vander, Jockey, 82, Sultan and the like that say I'm no different than the killer and the NRA has blood on its hand.  I promise you the more you say this, the more nothing is going to happen.  As I said, gun owners are more interested than you in stopping these crimes.  The difference is gun owners are seeking ways to make it stop, you acknowledged you want to "do something" even if it is ineffective which means that gun owners are punished.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 09:49:30 AM by 1.21 Jigawatts »

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #184 on: November 19, 2017, 09:56:17 AM »
It's a start.

http://www.postandcourier.com/politics/south-carolina-s-u-s-sen-tim-scott-backs-bill/article_a9fa403e-cae7-11e7-ae77-876203680660.html

The skinny: There is a bipartisan bill to close the "Charleston loophole" that allowed a terrorist to buy the gun that he used to kill 9 parishioners at a church 2 years ago. It surprisingly has won the support of Republican Sen. Tim Scott, who had repeatedly opposed any kind of new gun regulations, including the bipartisan bill that was floated after the Newton massacre.

If enough legislators hire private detectives to help them find their spines so they can overcome great NRA pressure to actually pass this, no, this law would not stop every gun crime in the future history of man. But it might stop 10 or 3 or 1. It is a logical law that falls under a "it's the least they can do" heading, and it's a start.

The NRA is in favor of this, you even admitted this above.  Everyone wants this except one group ... the ACLU.  They fear these streamlined lists will be used by landlords, insurance companies, and employers to deny rights.  They are also rightly worried about the Government developing a definition of "mentally ill" and the government maintaining such a list.

If you were not so intent on winning an internet argument you to would be rightly worried about these laws.  The intent of restricting gun ownership is good, the possible government abuse could be far more damaging.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #185 on: November 19, 2017, 10:09:38 AM »
Forgetful, I'm with you, throw them all out. 

Should NY drive its governor from office?


LAWSUIT: CUOMO IGNORED SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AGAINST OLD EMPLOYEE
http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2017/11/19/lawsuit-accuses-andrew-cuomo-ignoring-complaints-sexual-harassment-against-employee

A federal lawsuit accuses Gov. Andrew Cuomo of ignoring repeated complaints of sexual harassment against a former state employee. The lawyer for the accuser has scheduled a news conference for Sunday afternoon in Manhattan. The complaint names Sam Hoyt — who used to be the president of the Empire State Development Corporation — and the governor as defendants. The suit claims Cuomo's office wanted the issue to "go away." But sources told NY1 that the governor acted immediately when the employee initially complained. They also say this woman reached a monetary settlement with Hoyt. Hoyt stepped down last month after the accusations first surfaced.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #186 on: November 19, 2017, 10:25:21 AM »
If the problem is the assault weapon definition, then start by banning the AR-15 (regardless of manufacturer) and Sig Sauer MCX.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22724
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #187 on: November 19, 2017, 10:48:36 AM »
The NRA is in favor of this, you even admitted this above.  Everyone wants this except one group ... the ACLU.  They fear these streamlined lists will be used by landlords, insurance companies, and employers to deny rights.  They are also rightly worried about the Government developing a definition of "mentally ill" and the government maintaining such a list.

If you were not so intent on winning an internet argument you to would be rightly worried about these laws.  The intent of restricting gun ownership is good, the possible government abuse could be far more damaging.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin

You are right about the NRA supporting this. I assumed and it made an arse out of me.

That's called an admission that I made a mistake. You might want to try it sometime.

Again, this is a start. There are other policies out there that could do something, too. You even have acknowledged a couple.

Were you as concerned about taking away people's essential liberties in the wake of 9/11? How about when it comes to women's reproductive rights? When it comes to capital punishment? When it comes to voting rights?

I have found that people are very selective in applying quotes like Ben Franklin's - they love 'em when they fit their narrative; not so fond when they don't. Kind of like many people who constantly quote the Constitution or the bible.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #188 on: November 19, 2017, 12:59:11 PM »
If the problem is the assault weapon definition, then start by banning the AR-15 (regardless of manufacturer) and Sig Sauer MCX.

We tried that in 1994, it was banned 23 years ago.  But it became such a mess it was repealed in 2004.

Again, this is the problem, people get outraged and then demand we "do something" and then demand things that are already the law or was tried and failed.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #189 on: November 19, 2017, 01:25:41 PM »
We tried that in 1994, it was banned 23 years ago.  But it became such a mess it was repealed in 2004.

Again, this is the problem, people get outraged and then demand we "do something" and then demand things that are already the law or was tried and failed.

Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.

Some more facts:
Between 1973 and 1994, there were 2.05 mass shooting (defined as 5 or more deaths) per year.
Between 1995 and 2004 (during the ban) that number fell to 1.6 per year.
Between 2005 and 2015, that number spiked to 4.18 per year ... a number that has surely continued to go up.

You're correct in one sense, though. The ban was terribly flawed through a series of exceptions, grandfather clauses, etc. that vastly weakened it. Those could easily be addressed without scrapping the ban, of course. But as is often the case with the gun-clingers' specious arguments, if a gun restriction can't guarantee nothing bad will ever happen with a gun,  then it's worthless.

mu-rara

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #190 on: November 19, 2017, 02:18:01 PM »
Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.

This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda.  There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats.  You guys  (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it.  You use NRA as a profanity.  NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA.  I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #191 on: November 19, 2017, 02:26:05 PM »
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda.  There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats.  You guys  (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it.  You use NRA as a profanity.  NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA.  I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.

"Nazi".. nice. Glad we made it there.

mu-rara

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #192 on: November 19, 2017, 02:31:45 PM »
"Nazi".. nice. Glad we made it there.
I was careful not to invoke Godwin's Law.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #193 on: November 19, 2017, 03:41:31 PM »
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda.  There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats.  You guys  (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it.  You use NRA as a profanity.  NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA.  I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.

Highlighted is correct

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #194 on: November 19, 2017, 03:42:47 PM »
This is why anti gun-nazis have trouble passing their agenda.  There is strong support of the NRA among Democrats.  You guys  (Pakuni, et al.) don't get it.  You use NRA as a profanity.  NRA members are among the most law abiding citizens in the USA.  I am not 100% sure, but I think I've heard that no NRA member has been involved with a mass shooting.

Such an intelligent argument.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #195 on: November 19, 2017, 04:45:48 PM »
Fact check: It wasn't repealed and it wasn't a mess.
It was a 10-year ban allowed to expire by the GOP-controlled (read: NRA-controlled) Congress in 2004.

Some more facts:
Between 1973 and 1994, there were 2.05 mass shooting (defined as 5 or more deaths) per year.
Between 1995 and 2004 (during the ban) that number fell to 1.6 per year.
Between 2005 and 2015, that number spiked to 4.18 per year ... a number that has surely continued to go up.

You're correct in one sense, though. The ban was terribly flawed through a series of exceptions, grandfather clauses, etc. that vastly weakened it. Those could easily be addressed without scrapping the ban, of course. But as is often the case with the gun-clingers' specious arguments, if a gun restriction can't guarantee nothing bad will ever happen with a gun,  then it's worthless.


This article says your numbers and conclusions are all wrong.

Mass Shootings Are Getting Deadlier, Not More Frequent
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/04/mass-shootings-more-deadly-frequent-research-215678

For example, we had roughly the same raw number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 (14,612) as in 1969 (14,760). But because there were 110 million more Americans in 2011, the 1969 murder rate per 100,000 residents was 7.3, about 55 percent higher than the 2011 rate (4.7). Due to the rarity of mass public shootings, I’ve calculated the rates per 100 million in the U.S. population. (And, to help clarify the direction of trends over time, the black lines in the graphs below represent a five-year moving average.)


What has increased over time is the number of people shot in these incidents. Looking at annual trends in the total number of victims shot in mass public shootings (on a per capita basis), you can see that the severity has recently increased, reaching a 40-year high. Because the trends in the rates at which victims have been killed and wounded have been similar, I focus on the total number of victims shot (either killed or wounded). Before 2012, the five-year moving average never exceeded 20 victims shot (per 100 million Americans). Since then, the five-year moving average rate has been above 20 every year but one (2014).


This may help to explain why shootings seem more common, even though they aren’t. Research shows that the number of victims killed and wounded are the strongest predictors of the extent to which a mass killing gets reported by the news media. Recent growth in the number of catastrophic mass public shootings—combined with the extensive, wall-to-wall news coverage that accompanies these tragedies—likely accounts for the commonly held misconception that mass shootings are now more frequent.

The rise in the average number of victims also raises a number of other questions about mass public shootings. Foremost among them: Why have they become more deadly since the mid-2000s?


It may be tempting to conclude this increase is because of the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004—after all, the increase began shortly after the ban ended. But the limited research that’s been done suggests it had little short-term impact on gun violence.

That’s probably not a popular conclusion. But the available evidence suggests that strengthening or weakening gun laws would not significantly affect the incidence or severity of mass public shootings. For example, studies examining bans on large-capacity magazines and right-to-carry concealed firearms laws have found they would have little or no effect on mass public shootings.

Still, the question of whether the assault weapons ban had an impact on the severity of mass public shootings has yet to be answered empirically, which highlights a surprising major problem for those of us who’d like to stop the killings: There’s been relatively little rigorous research on mass violence, likely due to the virtual absence of research funding on this topic. In comparison, we spend millions each year to fund research on tornadoes, which have been about as deadly as mass shootings since the mid-1970s.

The few studies we do have tell us that mass public shootings, while horrific, are, fortunately, quite rare. This apparent paradox—rare yet “routine”—likely reflects the outsized impact that catastrophic mass murders have on our perceptions of public safety. But until we make the investment to find solutions, we won’t really know why these tragedies happen or how to prevent them.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 04:55:27 PM by 1.21 Jigawatts »

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #196 on: November 19, 2017, 04:50:57 PM »

This article says your numbers and conclusions are all wrong.

No, it doesn't say that at all.
Try harder.

Tugg Speedman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8836
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #197 on: November 19, 2017, 05:18:44 PM »
No, it doesn't say that at all.
Try harder.

This is your problem, you do not understand basic statistics.  You intentionally used statistics (that are probably inaccurate) to say the NUMBER of shootings is rising.  The article above says when this is adjusted for population, it has not.  So your premise is wrong.

What the article does say, which you have not address, is they are becoming deadlier.  However, your suggestion that it is the assault weapons ban, is not supported by research.

------------------------------

What is supported by research is the following, and you're not going to like it ...

Widespread media coverage contributing to rise in mass shootings, say psychologists
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mass-shooting-media-contagion-psychologists-research-personality-traits-us-a7172036.html

Widespread media coverage of mass shootings is contributing to their rise by giving perpetrators the fame they "desire", according to researchers.

By spreading the names and faces of mass shooters, social media and the mainstream media can be linked to a rising trend in school shoot-outs and public mass murder, psychologists have said.

And the number of shootings in the US, which now occur at a rate of one every 12 days, would be reduced by one third if journalists, bloggers and social media users "made a pact" not to spread the news.


---------------

The only variable that has changed and the only variable that correlates is TV coverage.  Gun laws, mental health spending and everything else you are told matters, does not relate.

What has changed is the over-the-top coverage.  And why now?  The rise of social media and 24-new cycles.

from the article ...

"At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?"

Dr Johnston emphasised the media's responsibility not to be beholden to online traffic and newspaper sales, in a paper presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention.

"We suggest that the media cry to cling to 'the public's right to know' covers up a greedier agenda to keep eyeballs glued to screens, since they know that frightening homicides are their number one ratings and advertising boosters," she said.

"If the mass media and social media enthusiasts make a pact to no longer share, reproduce or retweet the names, faces, detailed histories or long-winded statements of killers, we could see a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in one to two years.


---------------

We have another thread about people POV and news sources.  But in this thread, we learn that the most closed-minded are those that act the most enlightened.  Puk, 82, Vander, Brew, Vander, Goo, Eng03, Sultan, Forget and especially Jockey.  All have gone out of their way to condemn me and/or the NRA has having "blood on their hands."

In other words, you are weak and gullible.  The left plays you like a violin and you go off in places like here, exactly what they want.  Too unthinking to critically challenge the assumption.  Instead, we get the primal scream of "do something."  See TAMU posts in this thread (which can be summarized as "just pass some laws, anything .... please!!")

Is it because they live in a liberal echo chamber and refuse to think outside that bubble.  That is why they constantly attack me.  And when presented with facts they do not like, they attack me even further but accusing me and/or the NRA of being the murder.  Blaming is the NRA is akin to Godwin, say it and you lose the argument.  Most of you lost.

So instead of mocking "thoughts and prayers," which is unconscionable from those that claim to have a Jesuit education, if we had more god in society, we would have less of this carnage.  If we stopped celebrating the godless and their acts of mayhem, we have less of it.

The sad part is the highlighted should not be controversial among those that went to a Catholic university.  Watch how I will be attacked for this.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 05:27:59 PM by 1.21 Jigawatts »

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22724
Re: Another shooting
« Reply #198 on: November 19, 2017, 05:24:39 PM »
Ah, if only we all could be as enlightened as Smuggles, the world would be a better place.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson