Laquan McDonald

Duck and cover
User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:12 pm

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:He's basically saying that the right to bear guns superseeds the sanctity of human life,

Yes, that is what I am saying. Both you and JO say the same thing about other things, such as cars, knives, and swimming pools. You have no claim to moral superiority here.

That's untrue, xouper. I haven't said any of that. You can try to quote me, but you won't, because I haven't

If that is indeed true, then I apologize for misstating your position.

I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that
Please clarify: Is it your position that to save the lives of innocent children you would ban all swimming pools?

No, I have no position regarding swimming pools. It's not an issue to me.
Is it your position that the sanctity of human lives supersedes the right to own swimming pools, cars, knives, etc, and thus all those things should be banned?

No, I have no position regarding the banning of knives, swimming pools and cars. It's something that doesn't concern me.
Is that your position?

No
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:So no matter what you throw at him, he'll just disagree. It's against his moral code.

Unless you can show why I should change my moral code. No one has tried that yet.

I'm not trying to, xouper. I don't care.

Excellent. Thank you for clarifying that. The feeling is mutual. ;)

Please explain, what exactly are you trying to do here if not present a persuasive argument?

Well, I entered here with the intention of convincing JO that his intention would be fruitless. He ended up convincing me that his efforts were worthy

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:49 pm

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Is it your position that the sanctity of human lives supersedes the right to own swimming pools, cars, knives, etc, and thus all those things should be banned?

No, I have no position regarding the banning of knives, swimming pools and cars. It's something that doesn't concern me.

Please clarify: Are you saying that the sanctity of human lives does not concern you of they are killed by drunk drivers?

Are you saying the sanctity of the lives of innocent children does not concern you if they drown in a swimming pool?

Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

If so, then please explain how you justify your choices when to be concerned and when not?


supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France?

Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?


My purpose for asking these questions is because you accused me of having a broken moral compass, when it seems your moral compass qualifies for the same criticism.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7375
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby TJrandom » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:34 pm

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Is it your position that the sanctity of human lives supersedes the right to own swimming pools, cars, knives, etc, and thus all those things should be banned?

No, I have no position regarding the banning of knives, swimming pools and cars. It's something that doesn't concern me.

Please clarify: Are you saying that the sanctity of human lives does not concern you of they are killed by drunk drivers?

Are you saying the sanctity of the lives of innocent children does not concern you if they drown in a swimming pool?

Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

If so, then please explain how you justify your choices when to be concerned and when not?


supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France?

Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?


My purpose for asking these questions is because you accused me of having a broken moral compass, when it seems your moral compass qualifies for the same criticism.


There is so much straw in there that I do believe you are living in a barn….

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:53 pm

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

It's not an accusation, it's what I think. If I'm judging somebody's moral compass, I'm always going to take my own as a reference. Regarding JO's, from what I can tell he seems like an upstanding dude.
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Is it your position that the sanctity of human lives supersedes the right to own swimming pools, cars, knives, etc, and thus all those things should be banned?

No, I have no position regarding the banning of knives, swimming pools and cars. It's something that doesn't concern me.

Please clarify: Are you saying that the sanctity of human lives does not concern you of they are killed by drunk drivers?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying I have no position regarding "banning cars". It's not an issue to me
Are you saying the sanctity of the lives of innocent children does not concern you if they drown in a swimming pool?

Same thing
Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

How should I put this in terms you can understand? Hmmm, let's say I have a lot of neighbours and people in my country, and they all have knives, cars and swimming pools (well, not really, with regard to this last one, but let's say they do). It doesn't concern me that they do. If they had guns/possibility of having them, I'd be concerned. I'd appeal to the community in order to the guns being banned.

Get it?
If so, then please explain how you justify your choices when to be concerned and when not?

I'll leave that one for you to guess

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France?

Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?

[/quote]
I reject your premise that the Paris victims are a cost of having gun control in France. That's faulty thinking.

My purpose for asking these questions is because you accused me of having a broken moral compass, when it seems your moral compass qualifies for the same criticism.

I haven't, really, I just told JO what I was thinking wrt that, in order to explain some point. It's not an accusation: it's not a concern of me your moral compass.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:55 pm

supervitor wrote:There is so much straw in there that I do believe you are living in a barn….

They are requests to clarify your position, not to put words in your mouth. I assume you can tell the difference?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

It's not an accusation, it's what I think. If I'm judging somebody's moral compass, I'm always going to take my own as a reference. Regarding JO's, from what I can tell he seems like an upstanding dude.

That does not explain why you say I have a broken moral compass and JO does not, even though we both do the same thing? Please explain your double standard?

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

How should I put this in terms you can understand? Hmmm, let's say I have a lot of neighbours and people in my country, and they all have knives, cars and swimming pools (well, not really, with regard to this last one, but let's say they do). It doesn't concern me that they do. If they had guns/possibility of having them, I'd be concerned. I'd appeal to the community in order to the guns being banned.

It appears you are saying that you are concerned about the sanctity of life if guns are involved, but not when cars or knives are involved. Nice double standard you have there.

Given how many times I have asked you to clarify your position, the evidence now seems clear you are willing to accept the loss of human life as the price to be paid for having cars and swimming pools. JO is already on record as saying that is his position. I have no problem with that. Why do you dance around that issue instead of simply being honest about your moral priorities, as JO has done?

Your position appears to be that guns bother you, not the loss of life. If you were truly concerned about the sanctity of human life as you seem to claim, you would be concerned about all human life, and not just those who are killed by guns.

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France?

Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?

I reject your premise that the Paris victims are a cost of having gun control in France. That's faulty thinking.

And I reject your argument that those victims are not a consequence of France's choice to disarm its law abiding citizens, thus taking away an effective means of self defense.

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:My purpose for asking these questions is because you accused me of having a broken moral compass, when it seems your moral compass qualifies for the same criticism.

I haven't, really, I just told JO what I was thinking wrt that, in order to explain some point. It's not an accusation: it's not a concern of me your moral compass.

It was phrased as a criticism of my position, thus indeed it is an accusation. It does not matter if you excuse it by saying it's merely what you think. Furthermore, it's a criticism that applies to your position as well. I think your moral compass is broken because you will let innocent civilians die because you don't like them having guns to defend themselves.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:05 am

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:There is so much straw in there that I do believe you are living in a barn….

They are requests to clarify your position, not to put words in your mouth. I assume you can tell the difference?

No, not supervitor. Check again.
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

It's not an accusation, it's what I think. If I'm judging somebody's moral compass, I'm always going to take my own as a reference. Regarding JO's, from what I can tell he seems like an upstanding dude.

That does not explain why you say I have a broken moral compass and JO does not, even though we both do the same thing? Please explain your double standard?

I don't think it's a double standard. I don't enough of JO's positions to say he has a broken moral compass. From what I can tell he hasn't
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

How should I put this in terms you can understand? Hmmm, let's say I have a lot of neighbours and people in my country, and they all have knives, cars and swimming pools (well, not really, with regard to this last one, but let's say they do). It doesn't concern me that they do. If they had guns/possibility of having them, I'd be concerned. I'd appeal to the community in order to the guns being banned.

It appears you are saying that you are concerned about the sanctity of life if guns are involved, but not when cars or knives are involved. Nice double standard you have there.

Nope. It was for you to guess. Hint: I make a distinction that you're not making.
Given how many times I have asked you to clarify your position, the evidence now seems clear you are willing to accept the loss of human life as the price to be paid for having cars and swimming pools. JO is already on record as saying that is his position. I have no problem with that. Why do you dance around that issue instead of simply being honest about your moral priorities, as JO has done?

Your position appears to be that guns bother you, not the loss of life. If you were truly concerned about the sanctity of human life as you seem to claim, you would be concerned about all human life, and not just those who are killed by guns.

You're making assumptions that aren't there. I've tried to give (strong) hints to where your thinking fails logically, even when I wasn't talking to you. If you disagree, then we have a disagreement in that regard.
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Gun control itself is not even a real issue for me, because I live in the civilized part of the world ;)

Like Paris?

You could say that, yes.

Let the record show that in France, which has far stricter gun control than the US, their gun laws did not stop the recent mass shooting in Paris. When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the US with that many victims?

Have you ever noticed that there is never a mass shooting at a gun show? Criminals may be evil, but they are not that  stupid. They prefer to do their mass shootings where they know the victims will be unarmed.

Is it your position that the lives of those Paris victims is an acceptable cost to having gun control in France?

Is it your position that the moral principle of gun control supersedes the sanctity of those human lives?

I reject your premise that the Paris victims are a cost of having gun control in France. That's faulty thinking.

And I reject your argument that those victims are not a consequence of France's choice to disarm its law abiding citizens, thus taking away an effective means of self defense.

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:My purpose for asking these questions is because you accused me of having a broken moral compass, when it seems your moral compass qualifies for the same criticism.

I haven't, really, I just told JO what I was thinking wrt that, in order to explain some point. It's not an accusation: it's not a concern of me your moral compass.

It was phrased as a criticism of my position, thus indeed it is an accusation. It does not matter if you excuse it by saying it's merely what you think. Furthermore, it's a criticism that applies to your position as well. I think your moral compass is broken because you will let innocent civilians die because you don't like them having guns to defend themselves.

Ok, then.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:06 am

I try to stay away from moral arguments. Its a hole nuther can-o-wormz. My arguments are about lojik & wut works.

Lets go by body count.

Your Paris example duz not work, xouper. The terrorists certainly woud hav had less sekses if theyd employed the same stratejy in Dallas, but they woud hav been idiots to do so. But how many gun fatalityz occured in Dallas just this yir? How many over the last 10, 20, 30?

Lets estimate that the prezens uv gunz in Dallas rezulted in 10,000 deths over a 10 yir period, but there were 0 Islamic terrorist gun spreez. If you can expect 1 Islamic terrorist gun spree every 10 yirz in Dallas with about 200 fatalityz, that = 10,000 - 200.

Unless you are propozing that Parisianz are way more level heded and nonviolent than Americanz and woud not be regularly shooting each other and themselves, your example failz.

Then lets suppoze France, in respons to the attack, goez gung ho and adopts our 2nd amendment and all the gun proliferating lawz and polisyz that go with it. Do you think this will discouraj all future attacks or that the terrorists will plan sumthing that takes the situation into account and it rezults in a much hyer body count? A mass poizoning or sumthing that completely negates the gunz everywhere effect.

Then therez your transportation system comparison agen, even tho I'v debunked it several timez in several wayz befor.

If you subtract all the livez saved by ambulansez every year from the total killed in aksidents, youd hav a negative number. But thats only the beginning, Subtract everybody who can liv due to the existens uv the system, then the quality uv life each uv them hav. Try uzing the same arithmatic with gunz.

And for the record, I don't credit human life with any more sanctity than other animalz.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:12 am

JO 753 wrote:I try to stay away from moral arguments.

And yet you make one anyway when you say there are more important considerations than body counts when justifying your support for automobiles. You make a moral argument when you said that to prevent body counts, we must choose to ban guns. Both of those arguments are fundamentally moral in nature.

My position has always been founded on my core values, and I have said so all along.

JO 753 wrote:Lets go by body count.

OK, what's the largest single mass shooting in the US?

JO 753 wrote:Your Paris example duz not work, xouper.

I disagree. You have not made a valid argument against that example.

Here we go, point by point:

JO 753 wrote:The terrorists certainly woud hav had less sekses if theyd employed the same stratejy in Dallas, but they woud hav been idiots to do so.

I think you are are correct, but I have to ask the obvious, why do you believe that is true?

JO 753 wrote: But how many gun fatalityz occured in Dallas just this yir? How many over the last 10, 20, 30?

Most gun homicides in the US are gang related and thus are very different from mass shootings. You already know that fact from our previous conversations.

JO 753 wrote: Lets estimate that the prezens uv gunz in Dallas rezulted in 10,000 deths over a 10 yir period, but there were 0 Islamic terrorist gun spreez. If you can expect 1 Islamic terrorist gun spree every 10 yirz in Dallas with about 200 fatalityz, that = 10,000 - 200.

Are you arguing that gun control didn't work in Paris because the criminals were Muslim? Are you arguing that Paris is a bad example because the US has fewer Muslim criminals? Is that really the argument you want to make here?

JO 753 wrote: Unless you are propozing that Parisianz are way more level heded and nonviolent than Americanz and woud not be regularly shooting each other and themselves, your example failz.

Two points. Are you suggesting that the French people cannot be trusted to have guns and would have a higher gun homicide rate than the US if they had the equivalent of a "Second Amendment"?

Secondly, President Obama said (after the recent mass shooting at the college in Oregon) that other countries have better gun control that prevents mass shootings. Obviously he is wrong, as the Paris example shows. The stricter gun control in France did not stop the Paris mass shooting. That plain fact is highly inconvenient to Obama's gun agenda.

JO 753 wrote:Then lets suppoze France, in respons to the attack, goez gung ho and adopts our 2nd amendment and all the gun proliferating lawz and polisyz that go with it. Do you think this will discouraj all future attacks

The evidence is clear that mass shooters generally prefer that their victims be unarmed. The vast majority of mass shootings in the US have been in places where the victims have been deliberately disarmed. That fact is very clear.

JO 753 wrote:or that the terrorists will plan sumthing that takes the situation into account and it rezults in a much hyer body count? A mass poizoning or sumthing that completely negates the gunz everywhere effect.

The Second Amendment was never intended to prevent such things as planes flying into the World Trade Center, if that is what you are arguing. Just because guns cannot always be used to prevent all manner of mass attacks does not mean that we should do away with guns. To argue otherwise as you seem to be doing here is ludicrous.

JO 753 wrote:Then therez your transportation system comparison agen, even tho I'v debunked it several timez in several wayz befor.

If you subtract all the livez saved by ambulansez every year from the total killed in aksidents, youd hav a negative number.

A similar argument applies to guns, as I have already explained elsewhere on this forum. According to official government sources, there are far more successful uses of a gun for self defense than there are homicides by guns. Also according to official government crime data, an armed victim is less likely to be injured during an assault than an unarmed victim. You already know all this from our previous conversations.

JO 753 wrote: But thats only the beginning, Subtract everybody who can liv due to the existens uv the system, then the quality uv life each uv them hav.

I understand your argument and I do not disagree with essence of it. It is a moral argument to say that the loss of a few thousand lives is outweighed by the benefit to society. With respect to cars and swimming pools, I feel the same way you do.

JO 753 wrote: Try uzing the same arithmatic with gunz.

I just did, above. The benefits of guns to society is well documented, as are the harms. The loss of a few thousand lives from gun homicides by criminals is outweighed by the benefit of guns to responsible law abiding citizens. To argue otherwise is indeed a moral argument.

JO 753 wrote:And for the record, I don't credit human life with any more sanctity than other animalz.

I assume then you are a strict vegan and don't own or use any products whatsoever that came from animals in any way?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:25 am

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:I can quote where JO has said those things. Are you saying his moral compass is also broken because he puts a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

No, not saying any of that

Please explain how you justify having a double standard for accusing me of a broken moral compass and not JO when we both hold a moral principle above the sanctity of human lives?

It's not an accusation, it's what I think. If I'm judging somebody's moral compass, I'm always going to take my own as a reference. Regarding JO's, from what I can tell he seems like an upstanding dude.

That does not explain why you say I have a broken moral compass and JO does not, even though we both do the same thing? Please explain your double standard?

I don't think it's a double standard. I don't enough of JO's positions to say he has a broken moral compass. From what I can tell he hasn't

I have just told you what JO's position is. I can quote it for you. You have offered no valid excuse for your double standard in criticizing my position and not JO's position even though JO does a similar thing. Worse, it seems your position is no less broken than mine and for the exact same reason you use to criticize mine, you place your moral ideology above the lives of certain people that you are "not concerned about".

supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:
xouper wrote:Are you saying that sometimes the sanctity of human lives concerns you and sometimes it does not?

How should I put this in terms you can understand? Hmmm, let's say I have a lot of neighbours and people in my country, and they all have knives, cars and swimming pools (well, not really, with regard to this last one, but let's say they do). It doesn't concern me that they do. If they had guns/possibility of having them, I'd be concerned. I'd appeal to the community in order to the guns being banned.

It appears you are saying that you are concerned about the sanctity of life if guns are involved, but not when cars or knives are involved. Nice double standard you have there.

Nope. It was for you to guess. Hint: I make a distinction that you're not making.

It is not my burden to "guess" what your argument is.

You have accused me of having a broken moral compass and when I challenged your (alleged) hypocrisy on that point, all you gave in reply was that I should "guess" what you had in mind?

Perhaps you have forgotten this is a skeptic forum, not a woo-woo mind-reading forum.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:11 am

Your usual tactics. Misinterpretation and repeating debunked claimz.

No. I am not a vejetarian. I dont like the idea uv killing animalz for food, but unfortunately, Mother Nature made the rulez. Az an omnivore, I coud chooz to eat only vejtablez and froot, but I liv with carnivorz, so it woud be an ineffectiv jesture.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:13 am

JO 753 wrote:Your usual tactics. Misinterpretation and repeating debunked claimz.

Sorry, but none of my claims have been debunked. All of my claims of fact are backed up by evidence, often in the form of government data.

Nor have I intentionally misrepresented anything. If you feel I have misstated your position on a particular point, then please clarify what I got wrong. It is not my intention to make factually incorrect statements about your position.

JO 753 wrote:No. I am not a vejetarian. I dont like the idea uv killing animalz for food, but unfortunately, Mother Nature made the rulez. Az an omnivore, I coud chooz to eat only vejtablez and froot, but I liv with carnivorz, so it woud be an ineffectiv jesture.

Previously you said:

JO 753 wrote:And for the record, I don't credit human life with any more sanctity than other animalz.

Clearly, you value your own life more than that of the animals you eat. And I'm fine with that. I do the same.

But let's be clear that you are not claiming any moral superiority here. You say one thing, but your actions are not consistent with your words.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:17 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: so what are your core (emotional) values?

I have already explained this elsewhere on the forum. The primary one is the right of self sovereignty.

Ha, ha.......I thought as much. As I predicted: "...defective/dishonest/irrational...."

Self sovereignty has little to nothing to do with gun control. What whack-a-doddle website/newsletter gave you THAT talking point? Boiled down, like most Republican base voters, you don't give a {!#%@} about anybody but yourself. True, you've learned to mouth the opposite so as to appear as a human being.....or saying what you really think strikes even yourself as wrong, so you pick something else that is more difficult to challenge and not subject to ridicule.

But you are just a fool........ on this subject as far as I observed so far.

bobbonote: When otherwise intelligent people spout nonsense: its emotionally based.

............so you give words but no answer to what your emotional basis to support an absolutist gun policy is. For yourself....you really ought to give it some thought.

I even wonder, is it 100% NRA all the way as so far you have been? How about denying guns to people on the No Fly List or the Terrorist Watch List? NRA is against this. Haven't seen exactly why...and don't care. Asshats every single member of NRA.

Emotional = Mental Illness....unless specified otherwise. Just like I did by way of example.

Sad, there are so many just like you......or thankfully, only close enough.

bobbonote: (Oh....second one... a record?) Gavin Newsome on Bill Maher recording said more Children are killed by gun accidents than cops are killed on duty. An irrelevant playing with numbers, but kiddie lovers/families with kiddies or cops may find some interest in it (if true?). Gavin also mentioned that 2000 people on the terrorist watch list had legally purchased guns. You can't get much more gun stupid than that. Perhaps if the Syrian Terrorist Refugees would all carry a gun as they asked for sanctuary? They'd get NRA support at a minimum.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: so what are your core (emotional) values?

I have already explained this elsewhere on the forum. The primary one is the right of self sovereignty.

Ha, ha.......I thought as much. As I predicted: "...defective/dishonest/irrational...."

Self sovereignty has little to nothing to do with gun control.

Wrong. I have explained it all elsewhere on this forum. There is nothing "defective/dishonest/irrational" about my argument. You would not be the first to try to prove your claim to the contrary, and you would not be the first to fail to do so.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Boiled down, like most Republican base voters, you don't give a {!#%@} about anybody but yourself.

I am not a Republican and your accusation does not apply to me. Those who are paying attention already know that.

Furthermore, your own position commits the same exact error you accuse me of making. You do not "give a {!#%@}" about those whose lives are saved by using a gun for self defense. You would take that option away from them, even if it means more people will die because the victim was less able to defend himself. So do not pretend you have the moral high ground and value all lives equally. You do not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:But you are just a fool........ on this subject as far as I observed so far.

bobbonote: When otherwise intelligent people spout nonsense: its emotionally based.

............so you give words but no answer to what your emotional basis to support an absolutist gun policy is. For yourself....you really ought to give it some thought.

I even wonder, is it 100% NRA all the way as so far you have been? How about denying guns to people on the No Fly List or the Terrorist Watch List? NRA is against this. Haven't seen exactly why...and don't care. Asshats every single member of NRA.

Emotional = Mental Illness....unless specified otherwise. Just like I did by way of example.

Sad, there are so many just like you......or thankfully, only close enough.

It's downright amusing that you complain my arguments are emotionally based when all of the above is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. You just did the very thing you accused me of doing. That's the very definition of hypocrisy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gavin Newsome on Bill Maher recording said more Children are killed by gun accidents than cops are killed on duty.

That is not the fault of guns, it is the fault of irresponsible parents. That is not a valid reason to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

Also, car accidents kill far more children each year than gun accidents do. By your argument, we should ban cars.

For children under four years old, drowning kills more than gun accidents do. By your argument, we should ban swimming pools.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gavin also mentioned that 2000 people on the terrorist watch list had legally purchased guns. You can't get much more gun stupid than that. Perhaps if the Syrian Terrorist Refugees would all carry a gun as they asked for sanctuary? They'd get NRA support at a minimum.

I agree you have half a point there. However, being on a terrorist watch list is not sufficient legal justification to deny citizens their civil rights. It is hypocritical of liberals to argue otherwise. It is un-American to strip a person of his civil rights merely by placing them on some watchlist without due process.

Nonetheless, I am not in favor of terrorists having guns. The problem is that terrorists, by definition, do not abide by the laws and will not abide by gun laws either, as the Paris example shows rather clearly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:11 am

xouper wrote:Wrong. I have explained it all elsewhere on this forum. There is nothing "defective/dishonest/irrational" about my argument.

Your argument is that being an absolutist gun nut flows from your inherent rights under your right of self-sovereignty. But owning and using guns HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH self-sovereignty (sic when it comes to the closer concept of Anarchy, which is close to what I said, or being self centered and not caring about other people AND THEIR SELF SOVEREIGNTY). You just rely on other people not knowing that. Copy and Paste from your link the words that you think provide otherwise and in failure to do that, provide your own words.

Prove me wrong: Copy and Paste from your link the words that you think provide otherwise and in failure to do that, provide your own words.

Ha. ha......and beyond that: explain how your deep personal and emotional reasons for being a gun nut are found in a Wikipedia Article? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Silly Hooman.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:Wrong. I have explained it all elsewhere on this forum. There is nothing "defective/dishonest/irrational" about my argument.

Your argument is that being an absolutist gun nut flows from your inherent rights under your right of self-sovereignty. But owning and using guns HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH self-sovereignty (sic when it comes to the closer concept of Anarchy, which is close to what I said, or being self centered and not caring about other people AND THEIR SELF SOVEREIGNTY). You just rely on other people not knowing that. Copy and Paste from your link the words that you think provide otherwise and in failure to do that, provide your own words.

Prove me wrong: Copy and Paste from your link the words that you think provide otherwise and in failure to do that, provide your own words.

Ha. ha......and beyond that: explain how your deep personal and emotional reasons for being a gun nut are found in a Wikipedia Article? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Silly Hooman.

I have no obligation to respond to requests that are not civil and respectful. If you want to have a civil dialog, then stop behaving like an ass.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:15 am

"defective/dishonest/irrational"

And when called on it..............go ad hominem.

Ha, ha.

What makes you think your "position" deserves respect? The bodies of 30K people per year to your notion of self sovereignty?

You can't even argue your own position beyond mindless talking points .....and yet you get to vote.

Yea verily!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:42 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:"defective/dishonest/irrational"

And when called on it..............go ad hominem.

Ha, ha.

What makes you think your "position" deserves respect? The bodies of 30K people per year to your notion of self sovereignty?

You can't even argue your own position beyond mindless talking points .....and yet you get to vote.

Yea verily!

I have no obligation to respond to requests that are not civil and respectful. If you want to have a civil dialog, then stop behaving like an ass.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:57 am

Xouper: Its actually not your "position" on guns that gets my motor running. Its the "defective/dishonest/irrational" nature of your responses failing to support your position that after a few rounds: deserves you no respect at all.

Imagine that?

So................your choice: how does self sovereignty fit at all, or but still eventually: what is the personal emotional basis for your position?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Xouper: Its actually not your "position" on guns that gets my motor running. Its the "defective/dishonest/irrational" nature of your responses failing to support your position that after a few rounds: deserves you no respect at all.

Imagine that?

So................your choice: how does self sovereignty fit at all, or but still eventually: what is the personal emotional basis for your position?

I have no obligation to respond to requests that are not civil and respectful. If you want to have a civil dialog, then stop behaving like an ass.

And stop lying that I have not supported my position. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean I haven't done so.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:07 am

So...........how come the odds of finding a goat behind Door #2 are not 50/50? I mean....you know its disrespectful of you not to admit there are two doors.

Silly Hooman. Can't tell {!#%@} from shinola.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So...........how come the odds of finding a goat behind Door #2 are not 50/50? I mean....you know its disrespectful of you not to admit there are two doors.

Silly Hooman. Can't tell {!#%@} from shinola.

Perhaps you should refrain from posting when you're not sober.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:13 pm

xouper: cold sober when writing the preceding. Four beers in me now. You can tell: BECAUSE, I'm a "happy" drunk. Feeling all warm and toasty about gun nuts right now.

I need to touch base with a gun nut pilot buddy of mine. His baseline emotional orientation to the issue is that he grew up with guns and associated them only with good times with his father.

My own emotional basis was as posted.

Yours: complete BS.

See the difference?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:15 pm

xouper wrote:Sorry, but none of my claims have been debunked. All of my claims of fact are backed up by evidence, often in the form of government data.


You keep claiming that more self defens events occur than assaults in spite uv all the evidens to the extreem contrary. Then you extend that false claim to 'more livez are saved by gunz than lost'.

Nor have I intentionally misrepresented anything.


Misinterpret.

JO 753 wrote:No. I am not a vejetarian. I dont like the idea uv killing animalz for food, but unfortunately, Mother Nature made the rulez. Az an omnivore, I coud chooz to eat only vejtablez and froot, but I liv with carnivorz, so it woud be an ineffectiv jesture.

Previously you said:

JO 753 wrote:And for the record, I don't credit human life with any more sanctity than other animalz.

Clearly, you value your own life more than that of the animals you eat. And I'm fine with that. I do the same.

But let's be clear that you are not claiming any moral superiority here. You say one thing, but your actions are not consistent with your words.


I can understand how you woudnt understand, sins I havent completely explained.

I started riting it here, but it quickly became obvious that it duznt fit within a thred about a teenajer getting shot by a cop. It dezervez a new thred: Hoo Am I to Juj?
Last edited by JO 753 on Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:23 pm

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:Sorry, but none of my claims have been debunked. All of my claims of fact are backed up by evidence, often in the form of government data.

You keep claiming that more self defens events occur than assaults in spite uv all the evidens to the extreem contrary. Then you extend that false claim to 'more livez are saved by gunz than lost'.

That is factually incorrect. I cited official government data for my claims. They stand unrefuted. There is no evidence for the extreme contrary.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:50 pm

Nope. You sited the stat that assault victimz with gunz are less likely to be injured or killed than unarmed victimz. Nobody arguez agenst that. You are trying to extend it to mean that owning a gun makes you safer all around and the stats disproov that.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:29 pm

JO 753 wrote:Nope. You sited the stat that assault victimz with gunz are less likely to be injured or killed than unarmed victimz. Nobody arguez agenst that.

Thank you for clarifying that.

JO 753 wrote: You are trying to extend it to mean that owning a gun makes you safer all around ...

I have never claimed that having a gun makes any given person safer all around. I have never claimed that merely getting a gun automatically makes you safer all around.

Example: a person who is not sufficiently trained in using a gun will not necessarily be safer for anyone.

However, I can cite boatloads of evidence that many people have been safer with a gun. That is a fact, and you've seen the thread where I posted that evidence.

What I argue for is that no one has the right to deprive responsible law abiding citizens the option to have a gun.

JO 753 wrote: and the stats disproov that.

If you are referring to the 2009 Branas study that Lance likes to cite, then that has been thoroughly discredited and does not prove what you claim it proves.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:30 pm

is some kind of shooting happening in one of those countries that have gun control laws?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:39 pm

supervitor wrote:is some kind of shooting happening in one of those countries that have gun control laws?

Yes. Paris, 13 November 2015, mass shooting, 89 dead at the Bataclan Theatre.

France has much stricter gun control than the US but that didn't prevent that mass shooting, as many claimed it would, including Obama.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:40 pm


User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:41 pm

At least three officers were injured, Commander Kirk Wilson with the Colorado Springs Police Department told reporters. Officials at hospitals in the area said they were expecting the arrival of four patients, one of whom had a gunshot wound to the arm.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:42 pm

Wait a minute? Officer shot? Injured?

How were not they able to defend themselves against a shooter?

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:43 pm

Oh, right!!


Colorado has that strange law that prevents cops from having guns.

Crazy people! Right?

(Can't seem to find the source for this right now, but it's real!!)

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:55 pm

supervitor wrote:Nope. It's in Colorado...

:roll:

My bad for getting suckered by your troll bait.

I'll have to be more careful to remember you like to play word games and pose riddles instead of asking sincere questions or stating your point clearly and unambiguously.

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby supervitor » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:57 pm

xouper wrote:
supervitor wrote:Nope. It's in Colorado...

:roll:

I'll have to be more careful to remember you like to play word games and pose riddles instead of asking sincere questions or stating your point clearly and unambiguously.


It's good we begin to know each other

HAHAHAHA

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:59 am

xouper wrote:France has much stricter gun control than the US but that didn't prevent that mass shooting, as many claimed it would, including Obama.


This wuz wut iz refered to az a terrorist attack, wich iz quite distinct frum a garden variety mass shooting. You shoud read more about both types of events to clearly understand the distinction.

But, to address your statement more directly, you are claiming that Fransez gun control lawz do not work. (pleez dont bother denying it with 'thats not wut I rote' bekuz thats exactly wut you are insinuating)

I did a Google search for 'France shootings' and came up with this interesting tidbit frum the rezults. I think its more informativ than just a spesific thing about Frans:

Politifact: Did Obama get it rite?

Over the decade and a half studied, the researchers found 23 incidents of mass shootings in the other 10 countries, resulting in 200 dead and 231 wounded. In the United States over the same period, there were 133 incidents that left 487 dead and 505 wounded.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:17 am

JO 753 wrote:
xouper wrote:France has much stricter gun control than the US but that didn't prevent that mass shooting, as many claimed it would, including Obama.

This wuz wut iz refered to az a terrorist attack, wich iz quite distinct frum a garden variety mass shooting. You shoud read more about both types of events to clearly understand the distinction.

Tell that to the American liberal politicians who do not think such a distinction matters, since immediately after the Paris mass shootings, many of them, including Obama, called for more gun control in the US to prevent such things, despite the obvious fact that such controls did not prevent the Paris mass shootings.

Not to mention that taking guns away from responsible law abiding American citizens will leave them as defenseless as the Parisians were, a position I find morally reprehensible.

In fact, I would say that because it was a terrorist attack, and not just a "garden variety mass shooting", that makes it all the more obvious that American citizens should be allowed the option to defend themselves with appropriate firearms. So thank you for pointing out that difference.

JO 753 wrote:But, to address your statement more directly, you are claiming that Fransez gun control lawz do not work. (pleez dont bother denying it with 'thats not wut I rote' bekuz thats exactly wut you are insinuating)

Please do not draw such unwarranted "insinuations" or extrapolated generalities from what I wrote. I do not know if gun control in France "works" or not. That was not my point. My point is that those politicians who want more gun control to prevent mass shootings are proposing a solution that did not work in Paris to prevent such things.

JO 753 wrote:I did a Google search for 'France shootings' and came up with this interesting tidbit frum the rezults. I think its more informativ than just a spesific thing about Frans:

Politifact: Did Obama get it rite?

Over the decade and a half studied, the researchers found 23 incidents of mass shootings in the other 10 countries, resulting in 200 dead and 231 wounded. In the United States over the same period, there were 133 incidents that left 487 dead and 505 wounded.

What conclusion would you like us to make from that fact?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:42 am

JO 753 wrote:Herez the vid uv the kid in Chicago.

Laquan McDonald

It showz the entire trip to the sene, so it takes 5:20 befor it gets there.

I'm not defending the cop. He overreacted and apparently haz a record uv complaints, but.

Considering that Chicago iz famous for hi shooting rates and the behavior uv the teenajer, maybe the case iz not az clear cut az the media makes it out to be. ...

Here's a weird take on the matter (which I do not endorse):

Image

Image from: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/black-friday-chicago-win-obama-rahm-emanuel/

The Mayor of Chicago is responsible for the actions of the Police Department, so why is he not doing his job to insure the police do not behave badly?

Seems to me, the Chicago Democratic Machine has only itself to blame if there is indeed institutional racism in the police department, as some allege.

Why is it that Obama is outraged at a mass shooting in Oregon and says something must be done, but then does nothing about the much higher murder rate in his own back yard?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:45 am

JO 753 wrote:
I did a Google search for 'France shootings' and came up with this interesting tidbit frum the rezults. I think its more informativ than just a spesific thing about Frans:

Politifact: Did Obama get it rite?

Good article, worth the short read. No...Obama got it wrong as he recently has been doing most consistently. BUT...he may have been conjoining MASS MURDER incidents with the common everyday non mass murders that take place every day. Easy to do.

More subtle harm caused by guns is the creation of a "gun culture" where guns are the answer to any problem. In USA...it comprises our main diplomatic response to all things difficult. More than MASS MURDERS, more than Daily Murders, this Gun Culture Mentality where you don't go into town at night and avoid entire parts of town day or night, is the real debilitating result of guns being legal and over present.

The solution will be making guns illegal and have close control on them for military use. It will take decades to clean them out of society.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12223
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby JO 753 » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:10 am

xouper wrote:Why is it that Obama is outraged at a mass shooting in Oregon and says something must be done, but then does nothing about the much higher murder rate in his own back yard?


He haz talked about that many timez.

What conclusion would you like us to make from that fact?


Same point I made befor - that there woud be way more shootingz if they had gunz everywhere all the time like we do.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10236
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Laquan McDonald

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:21 am

"Capitalism Killed Laquand" //// Actually there is a fairly direct link. The "conspiracy" between Gun Manufacturers and the NRA to prevent any gun restrictions at all is direct enough. Not just to Laquand, but to all gun deaths.

The absolutist insanity of the NRA position could be totally home grown but in years past they were more about gun education and reasonable restrictions. that has changed and they are now a gun (sales) advocacy group all to the profit of Gun Makers. 2 Links at Most.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests