Mass Shooting At Pittsburgh Synagogue

[JM_]

29 minutes ago, Kragar said:

I'm sorry, but you have misrepresented me here.  I am not propping up the current approach to guns.  I have mentioned a couple times in our discussion that I am open to some gun control proposals promoted by the gun-control lobby (greater detail can be found in discussions primarily with Rupert in gun threads this past year or so).  What I have been debating is your misguided loyalty towards the idea that banning AR-15s specifically (or I would assume long guns in general) as a significant solution. 

 

You think that the problem is gun deaths.  You are welcome to your opinion, but I have done my best to show you how you are mistaken.  Mass shootings are a symptom.  Gun deaths are a symptom.  Even homicide in general is a symptom.  Does it matter to the victims how they died?  Does it make a difference if someone kills 10 people in a month, or all 10 at once, since both involve 10 people dying?

 

What matters is that too many people are dying needlessly.  Your logic tells you that reducing the number of people being killed at one time is the main issue.  If you want to ignore the empirical facts that say otherwise, I can't stop you.

Really? It seems like you are looking for reasons not to ban guns like AR-15s on some pretty specious reasoning. 

 

Yes I do think gun deaths are a problem. There's a direct correlation between the number and access to guns in the US and the massive death count. 

 

Yes it does matter if its a mass killing, the number of those incidents can be curbed.

 

Thats the silly logic I'm talking about. Thats the type of distraction you are trying to use and that kind of thinking is just going to lead to nothing being done. 

 

 

[Kragar]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Really? It seems like you are looking for reasons not to ban guns like AR-15s on some pretty specious reasoning. 

 

Yes I do think gun deaths are a problem. There's a direct correlation between the number and access to guns in the US and the massive death count. 

 

Yes it does matter if its a mass killing, the number of those incidents can be curbed.

 

Thats the silly logic I'm talking about. Thats the type of distraction you are trying to use and that kind of thinking is just going to lead to nothing being done. 

Specious?  You are one suggesting that we do something like Australia's "assault" weapons ban, despite the observable FACT that their ban did not affect the homicide rate?  They may have curbed gun deaths, but why were people being killed at about the same rate for so long after the ban?  Could it just be that there was some other issues at hand?

 

Does correlation imply causation?  Like I suggested, look at the disease rather than the symptoms.  Or, keep playing politics with your own silly logic.  It's up to you.

 

I'm done.  My head hurts from this brick wall.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[RUPERTKBD]

Interesting comparison:

 

Faux News (along with a few other right-wing pundits) is wondering if there is "room for interpretation" of the 14th Amendment.....

 

.....but the 2nd amendment? GTFO

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

Specious?  You are one suggesting that we do something like Australia's "assault" weapons ban, despite the observable FACT that their ban did not affect the homicide rate?  They may have curbed gun deaths, but why were people being killed at about the same rate for so long after the ban?  Could it just be that there was some other issues at hand?

 

Does correlation imply causation?  Like I suggested, look at the disease rather than the symptoms.  Or, keep playing politics with your own silly logic.  It's up to you.

 

I'm done.  My head hurts from this brick wall.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

maybe this will help you identify the disease properly: what makes more sense to you, to have a system where you have to come up with reasons to block certain types of guns or one that makes you provide reasons to have certain types of guns? guns are the problem, any other approach is avoiding the issue. 

 

If we took your approach to guns and applied it to car safety I doubt there would be seatbelts. 

 

[Kragar]

38 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

maybe this will help you identify the disease properly: what makes more sense to you, to have a system where you have to come up with reasons to block certain types of guns or one that makes you provide reasons to have certain types of guns? guns are the problem, any other approach is avoiding the issue. 

 

If we took your approach to guns and applied it to car safety I doubt there would be seatbelts. 

 

Seatbelts have shown to be quite effective in saving lives, I recall.  You still haven't shown how an AR-15 ban would be effective at saving lives.

 

Is your solution to car safety... horses?

[RUPERTKBD]

4 minutes ago, Kragar said:

Seatbelts have shown to be quite effective in saving lives, I recall.  You still haven't shown how an AR-15 ban would be effective at saving lives.

 

Is your solution to car safety... horses?

I think the point being that there was no proof before seatbelts were tried, either.

[Ilunga]

16 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think the point being that there was no proof before seatbelts were tried, either.

The cast has changed but the sentiments remain the same.

 

There is no real point debating the same subject over and over again and expect a different result when people are so polarised by their views.

 

Audience wrote a song in the seventies called eye to eye that has always applied to human beings however it seems more pertinent than ever in todays world.

 

When the old man was talking to the young man 

The young man he didn't give a damn

 

When the young man was talking to the old man 

You know the old man well he wouldn't understand

 

Though each appear to be sure he was right 

The seeds of doubt had been planted inside

So they argued on into the night 

To proud and stubborn to see eye to eye

 

There were 2 men talking when the day came 

When the day came neither remained again

Both agreed that the motives were right 

They couldn't see others methods applied 

So they argued on into the night 

To proud and stubborn to see eye to eye

[Kragar]

17 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think the point being that there was no proof before seatbelts were tried, either.

We've had an assault weapons ban before, with limited effectiveness (granted, the law could have been better).  Australia's keeps being touted as such a good example.  I'm still waiting for someone to refute my earlier posts suggesting otherwise.  Until then, forgive me for maintaining my beliefs. 

 

If people are angry/desperate/mixed up/etc., they are more prone to do violent things, to themselves or others.  As polarization increases, that violence can get even worse, as we have seen recently.  I don't see why it is so hard to comprehend that addressing those factors would be more successful than addressing guns, especially since the immense majority of gun owners are not out there killing people to begin with.  

 

A law banning the AR-15 is a waste of time and money.  On the other hand, implementing some of the gun measures you and I have agreed on in the past, along with common sense reforms involving things like education, immigration,and health care (mental and otherwise), and IMO we will do so much better, reducing homicides across the board.  Not just by the comparably few who happen to die by an AR.  

 

Now, I really am done.  Time for one of the high points of my week... I get to go build something (hopefully) beautiful.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Kragar said:

Seatbelts have shown to be quite effective in saving lives, I recall.  You still haven't shown how an AR-15 ban would be effective at saving lives.

 

Is your solution to car safety... horses?

horses are fun and do make some sense in a city... but thats another topic. 

 

I know if you don't have an AR-15 you can't kill a classroom full of kids or a room full of people at prayer with one. I think that qualifies as effective. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I think the point being that there was no proof before seatbelts were tried, either.

that and there were an army of apologists at the time like Kragar giving all kinds of reasons why other things would be better ideas. If you haven't looked up the history its pretty interesting. 

[Ryan Strome]

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

horses are fun and do make some sense in a city... but thats another topic. 

 

I know if you don't have an AR-15 you can't kill a classroom full of kids or a room full of people at prayer with one. I think that qualifies as effective. 

Wouldn't they just use a different gun or weapon? Again the issue isn't guns.

 

But I do agree, I like horses.

[Ilunga]

21 minutes ago, Kragar said:

We've had an assault weapons ban before, with limited effectiveness (granted, the law could have been better).  Australia's keeps being touted as such a good example.  I'm still waiting for someone to refute my earlier posts suggesting otherwise.  Until then, forgive me for maintaining my beliefs. 

 

If people are angry/desperate/mixed up/etc., they are more prone to do violent things, to themselves or others.  As polarization increases, that violence can get even worse, as we have seen recently.  I don't see why it is so hard to comprehend that addressing those factors would be more successful than addressing guns, especially since the immense majority of gun owners are not out there killing people to begin with.  

 

A law banning the AR-15 is a waste of time and money.  On the other hand, implementing some of the gun measures you and I have agreed on in the past, along with common sense reforms involving things like education, immigration,and health care (mental and otherwise), and IMO we will do so much better, reducing homicides across the board.  Not just by the comparably few who happen to die by an AR.  

 

Now, I really am done.  Time for one of the high points of my week... I get to go build something (hopefully) beautiful.

You cannot really use our murder rate as an example.

Apart from the Port Arthur massacre that triggered the clampdown on automatic weapons our society does not and never has had nutbags that want to grab a gun and indiscrimately  go and kill people they do not know, might hate/dislike because of the race, gender or sexual orientation.

Aussie are motivated to murder each other because of a domestic argument,other argument,revenge,alcohol related argument,money /drugs and in a minority of cases no apparent motive.

It is in Americans DNA, their love of guns and shooting the frack out of anyone and anything in front of them.

Check out the figures for death by "friendly fire" in the wars you participate in.

[Ryan Strome]

8 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

You cannot really use our murder rate as an example.

Apart from the Port Arthur massacre that triggered the clampdown on automatic weapons our society does not and never has had nutbags that want to grab a gun and indiscrimately  go and kill people they do not know, might hate/dislike because of the race, gender or sexual orientation.

Aussie are motivated to murder each other because of a domestic argument,other argument,revenge,alcohol related argument,money /drugs and in a minority of cases no apparent motive.

It is in Americans DNA, their love of guns and shooting the frack out of anyone and anything in front of them.

Check out the figures for death by "friendly fire" in the wars you participate in.

Australia and pretty much the rest of the world. As I keep saying guns aren't the problem the US is. We have lots of guns and semi automatics yet we don't see this problem here.

[Ilunga]

45 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Australia and pretty much the rest of the world. As I keep saying guns aren't the problem the US is. We have lots of guns and semi automatics yet we don't see this problem here.

It is quite apparent in their movies and TV series.

Dudes emptying whole clips and replacing them and doing it again.

Even going back to the old western movies.

I think of that scene from the Simpsons where Barney is sitting at the bar getting inebriated and stating," I dont feel that inflated sense of self worth", he grabs a handgun," ahhh there it is".

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that and there were an army of apologists at the time like Kragar giving all kinds of reasons why other things would be better ideas. If you haven't looked up the history its pretty interesting. 

Believe me Jimmy, I've been front and center for all of these debates. The two things you can count of from the pro-gun side is that someone will break out the "you want to ban all guns" strawman and they will (incorrectly) state that all the anti-gun lobby ever does is complain about guns and never offer any solutions.

 

Conversely, instead of telling you what will work, they'll spend all of their time telling you what won't work.

 

In one such "debate" I posted a list of common sense ideas to help mitigate to gun violence situation and was told that my ideas were "not valid" because I could provide no absolute proof that they they would be effective. (It wasn't Lancaster, BTW)

[Ilunga]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

that and there were an army of apologists at the time like Kragar giving all kinds of reasons why other things would be better ideas. If you haven't looked up the history its pretty interesting. 

Who reads history today ?

[RUPERTKBD]

49 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Australia and pretty much the rest of the world. As I keep saying guns aren't the problem the US is. We have lots of guns and semi automatics yet we don't see this problem here.

Canadians don't leave loaded weapons lying around the house where children can get their hands on, thanks to this unfounded fear that criminals are going to break into their house at any minute.

 

It the gun lobby convincing Americans that they aren't safe without a loaded weapon to hand at all times that is responsible for a lot of the accidental firearm deaths in the US

[Ryan Strome]

32 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Canadians don't leave loaded weapons lying around the house where children can get their hands on, thanks to this unfounded fear that criminals are going to break into their house at any minute.

 

It the gun lobby convincing Americans that they aren't safe without a loaded weapon to hand at all times that is responsible for a lot of the accidental firearm deaths in the US

Oh I have said many times Americans are raised on fear and war. 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Wouldn't they just use a different gun or weapon? Again the issue isn't guns.

 

But I do agree, I like horses.

yes, it is. They're using guns, that implicitly makes it a gun issue. 

 

If we ban (or say restrict their use to a gun range for hobbyists e.g.) AR-15s and people have a new favourite semi-auto, then we ban that too. I know from your posts you are very likely a responsible gun owner, which is great, but its just a hobby. Its not worth lives. The sheer number and types of guns and magazines available in the US has reached insane levels, it has to be clawed back one type at time. 

[JM_]

45 minutes ago, Ilunga said:

Who reads history today ?

me