Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

son of a gun

Female is the latest school shooter; 3 kids and 2 adults dead in elementary school in Tennessee.

Recommended Posts

On 3/30/2023 at 8:55 AM, Akkula said:

That is like saying...."A Tree" it is either right or wrong.  So dumb.  It just "is"

25FE8739-3AB3-4162-8C36-8C1E4C488032.jpeg.3e810f27ec8ee22984256699f778818a.jpeg

“Akkula, this is HAL. I can tell that you are very upset, but I can assure you that everything is going to be OK. I’m feeling better now, and I know I can do a much better job making you feel better. I can feel it. I can feel it.”

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 3:44 AM, Nevada Convert said:

1D9067F2-F3AD-4D81-AFD4-38F7A4810C41.jpeg.b23a515f81cb57ea5584c4863826415f.jpeg

You guys keep nominating that guy and your little metallic peckers will be cut off quick.  He is a born loser and will deliver all three branches to us without faux Democrats like Sinema.

Eliminating the filibuster is goal number #1 for Democrats so we can stop being run by an insane minority. 

This clown will deliver more Georgias to us because he will continually blab about things like arming teachers. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2023 at 5:00 PM, Rosegreen said:

To an extent, there’s been evidence and statistics that are for guns in this thread though.
 

Look, the argument is that there’s “piles of dead kids”, we got to get rid of guns. It’s an emotional fallacy, it’s not even the leading cause of deaths among children.
 

If the objective truly was to save and protect children’s lives, then why is the leading cause (not guns) of deaths being ignored by virtually everyone? 

I mean...

For one, you're objectively mistaken about what the leading cause of death is

For two, the argument is "who cares about you masturbating about a pile of dead kids! Don't touch my GUNS!" That's.... also an emotional fallacy. You're falling victim to what you're accusing others of.

For three, we already expend an enormous amount of energy reducing childhood motor vehicle deaths. We require vehicle use licenses, and insurance, and have mandatory speed limits, and areas where vehicles can't be used, and have education for poor users of vehicles, and can revoke the use of vehicles, and mandate that vehicles are built to make them safer, and mandate that children use additional safety measures in vehicles based on exhaustive vehicle testing. We are doing a LOT to prevent motor vehicle deaths of children. When it comes to drugs, well, I hate to tell you this, man, but fentanyl use is already illegal. We have laws governing is production, governing its use, governing its sale; we have entire federal bureaus dedicated to targeting recreational drugs; we have a militarized border to prevent its spread. We lock ourselves up at a rate higher than any other nation in the name of a war on drugs and we have a support network for addicts who wish to stop opioid use.

I mean, if you wanted to compare fentanyl deaths to gun deaths, then sure, make all guns illegal, I guess. Or if you wanted to compare gun deaths to motor vehicle deaths, then sure, require owner paid insurance and require a license and have a maximum magazine size inside certain areas and ban guns that can fire x rounds per minute inside densely populated areas and design entire cities specifically around guns and what kind of gun use is going to be acceptable and require gun design that prevents damage to the owner and if an owner misses an easy shot on the target range too often, tough shit, your gun license is suspended for 6 months.

Because, well, we do a LOT MORE for the other things kids are killed by. Now people are asking to do anything for what is now the leading cause of death, and that triggers an emotional response in you. You're emotionally reacting to any kind of gun restriction proposal and your comparison above is proof. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 4:38 AM, Akkula said:

You guys keep nominating that guy and your little metallic peckers will be cut off quick.  He is a born loser and will deliver all three branches to us without faux Democrats like Sinema.

Eliminating the filibuster is goal number #1 for Democrats so we can stop being run by an insane minority. 

This clown will deliver more Georgias to us because he will continually blab about things like arming teachers. 


8F17D2AD-292D-40A5-B884-3072B9853AB6.jpeg.4d9248ea3ba30c512d37a5168eec1b52.jpeg

Dear Lenin friend,

There isn’t any problem too big for T-Rex and T-Rump to conquer, together. They can do anything!! 
 

Love Always,
Convert

 

 

 

 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 12:04 PM, Nevada Convert said:


8F17D2AD-292D-40A5-B884-3072B9853AB6.jpeg.4d9248ea3ba30c512d37a5168eec1b52.jpeg

Dear Lenin friend,

There isn’t any problem too big for T-Rex and T-Rump to conquer, together. They can do anything!! 
 

Love Always,
Convert

 

 

 

 

that's a raptor convert

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 6:08 AM, happycamper said:

I mean...

For one, you're objectively mistaken about what the leading cause of death is

For two, the argument is "who cares about you masturbating about a pile of dead kids! Don't touch my GUNS!" That's.... also an emotional fallacy. You're falling victim to what you're accusing others of.

For three, we already expend an enormous amount of energy reducing childhood motor vehicle deaths. We require vehicle use licenses, and insurance, and have mandatory speed limits, and areas where vehicles can't be used, and have education for poor users of vehicles, and can revoke the use of vehicles, and mandate that vehicles are built to make them safer, and mandate that children use additional safety measures in vehicles based on exhaustive vehicle testing. We are doing a LOT to prevent motor vehicle deaths of children. When it comes to drugs, well, I hate to tell you this, man, but fentanyl use is already illegal. We have laws governing is production, governing its use, governing its sale; we have entire federal bureaus dedicated to targeting recreational drugs; we have a militarized border to prevent its spread. We lock ourselves up at a rate higher than any other nation in the name of a war on drugs and we have a support network for addicts who wish to stop opioid use.

I mean, if you wanted to compare fentanyl deaths to gun deaths, then sure, make all guns illegal, I guess. Or if you wanted to compare gun deaths to motor vehicle deaths, then sure, require owner paid insurance and require a license and have a maximum magazine size inside certain areas and ban guns that can fire x rounds per minute inside densely populated areas and design entire cities specifically around guns and what kind of gun use is going to be acceptable and require gun design that prevents damage to the owner and if an owner misses an easy shot on the target range too often, tough shit, your gun license is suspended for 6 months.

Because, well, we do a LOT MORE for the other things kids are killed by. Now people are asking to do anything for what is now the leading cause of death, and that triggers an emotional response in you. You're emotionally reacting to any kind of gun restriction proposal and your comparison above is proof. 

And we already provide restrictions on the 2A. Sawed off shotguns, full auto, attack vehicles, explosives, nuclear weapons...

I don't understand why drawing another line at semiautomatic is suddenly infringing on the 2A. I don't understand why lines are drawn how they are. 

I don't want guns confiscated unless used in committing a crime, but I sure as hell want to stop the manufacturing of semi-auto. When is enough guns enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 6:08 AM, happycamper said:

I mean...

For one, you're objectively mistaken about what the leading cause of death is

For two, the argument is "who cares about you masturbating about a pile of dead kids! Don't touch my GUNS!" That's.... also an emotional fallacy. You're falling victim to what you're accusing others of.

For three, we already expend an enormous amount of energy reducing childhood motor vehicle deaths. We require vehicle use licenses, and insurance, and have mandatory speed limits, and areas where vehicles can't be used, and have education for poor users of vehicles, and can revoke the use of vehicles, and mandate that vehicles are built to make them safer, and mandate that children use additional safety measures in vehicles based on exhaustive vehicle testing. We are doing a LOT to prevent motor vehicle deaths of children. When it comes to drugs, well, I hate to tell you this, man, but fentanyl use is already illegal. We have laws governing is production, governing its use, governing its sale; we have entire federal bureaus dedicated to targeting recreational drugs; we have a militarized border to prevent its spread. We lock ourselves up at a rate higher than any other nation in the name of a war on drugs and we have a support network for addicts who wish to stop opioid use.

I mean, if you wanted to compare fentanyl deaths to gun deaths, then sure, make all guns illegal, I guess. Or if you wanted to compare gun deaths to motor vehicle deaths, then sure, require owner paid insurance and require a license and have a maximum magazine size inside certain areas and ban guns that can fire x rounds per minute inside densely populated areas and design entire cities specifically around guns and what kind of gun use is going to be acceptable and require gun design that prevents damage to the owner and if an owner misses an easy shot on the target range too often, tough shit, your gun license is suspended for 6 months.

Because, well, we do a LOT MORE for the other things kids are killed by. Now people are asking to do anything for what is now the leading cause of death, and that triggers an emotional response in you. You're emotionally reacting to any kind of gun restriction proposal and your comparison above is proof. 

These people were not killed by a gun. They were killed by a mass murderer with a gun.

People that die of fentanyl overdoses almost always die from trying to get high off drugs, that are already illegal, and the chemistry wasn’t in their favor. They risked their own lives but weren’t trying to hurt anyone.

With the exceptions of people intent on murder, like the Waukesha murderer, most people that die in automobile accidents die because of physics. Something goes wrong and soft tissue meets mass in the form of metal, concrete, hard earth, and an abrupt change in speed that the tissue is no match for. People woke up and decided they needed to get somewhere fast and didn’t make it. They didn’t decide to kill anybody.

When someone decides today is a good today to go massacre a bunch of people, it’s not like a drug overdose or a car accident. It’s quite a commitment. Guns make it easier to do but it seems pretty unlikely they’d just give up on what they set out to do because it was just a little too inconvenient. I wish it were the case.

image.gif.bf97e77953182d9f78d812b78880ac9a.gif
 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 1:39 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

These people were not killed by a gun. They were killed by a mass murderer with a gun.

People that die of fentanyl overdoses almost always die from trying to get high off drugs, that are already illegal, and the chemistry wasn’t in their favor. They risked their own lives but weren’t trying to hurt anyone.

With the exceptions of people intent on murder, like the Waukesha murderer, most people that die in automobile accidents die because of physics. Something goes wrong and soft tissue meets mass in the form of metal, concrete, hard earth, and an abrupt change in speed that the tissue is no match for. People woke up and decided they needed to get somewhere fast and didn’t make it. They didn’t decide to kill anybody.

When someone decides today is a good today to go massacre a bunch of people, it’s not like a drug overdose or a car accident. It’s quite a commitment. Guns make it easier to do but it seems pretty unlikely they’d just give up on what they set out to do because it was just a little too inconvenient. I wish it were the case.

image.gif.bf97e77953182d9f78d812b78880ac9a.gif
 

Would perhaps the murder rate of the entire rest of the developed world change your mind?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 10:41 AM, happycamper said:

Would perhaps the murder rate of the entire rest of the developed world change your mind?

Change my mind that tragic vehicle accidents and drug overdoses are not the same as murdering innocent people? Because I’m pretty sure those things don’t usually show up in the murder rate.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 10:48 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Change my mind that tragic vehicle accidents and drug overdoses are not the same as murdering innocent people? Because I’m pretty sure those things don’t usually show up in the murder rate.

So we should make restrictions to try to prevent unintended deaths, but keep it easy to allow intended killing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 10:51 AM, SharkTanked said:

So we should make restrictions to try to prevent unintended deaths, but keep it easy to allow intended killing? 

Murder is already illegal. If you want guns to be illegal, well, convince people. But to do that you’re going to have to clear the bar that focuses on the murderer and not just the existence of the tool they use to murder.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 10:56 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Murder is already illegal. If you want guns to be illegal, well, convince people. But to do that you’re going to have to clear the bar that focuses on the murderer and not just the existence of the tool they use to murder.

Tools used to die accidentally are restricted all the time. Tools used to kill are not.

I understand the point about intentionality, but I see quite a bit of contradiction surrounding any gun restrictions relative to restrictions on pretty much everything else that it harmful to humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 1:56 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Murder is already illegal. If you want guns to be illegal, well, convince people. But to do that you’re going to have to clear the bar that focuses on the murderer and not just the existence of the tool they use to murder.

Access to guns has a high correlation to successful murdering and suiciding, especially in the developed world. Gun control obviously wouldn't address the desire to kill, but it probably would ameliorate the success rate in carrying out that desire. Pretty basic stuff. 

I agree that the roots of the desire to kill should also be addressed, and overall addressing them is more important, but reducing the success rate of murderers and suiciders would also be good. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:08 AM, SharkTanked said:

Tools used to die accidentally are restricted all the time. Tools used to kill are not.

I understand the point about intentionality, but I see quite a bit of contradiction surrounding any gun restrictions relative to restrictions on pretty much everything else that it harmful to humans.

We have gun ownership restrictions. Age, open carry status, criminal record; all things governed by law already. If you want more restrictions you gotta convince people. It’s the only way.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:13 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

We have gun ownership restrictions. Age, open carry status, criminal record; all things governed by law already. If you want more restrictions you gotta convince people. It’s the only way.

Oh I get that. I just don't understand how people can't be convinced by now. Attempts get shouted down by accusations of "emotionality." You can't convince people when one side won't honestly engage in debate.

Yes banning guns (which I don't think is the answer, just the continued manufacture of certain types of guns) isn't going to solve the problem. People want to kill people.

I think there is merit in making it more difficult for people to kill people. I think we can do quite a bit more in this space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2023 at 8:11 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

Considering conservatives like to (correctly) point out the role mental health plays in these shootings, I would like to know if any conservatives support the government subsidizing the cost of mental health care?

Especially when it's their propaganda machine creating the doom and gloom scenarios that many fall mentally prey to.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:10 AM, youngredbullfan said:

Access to guns has a high correlation to successful murdering and suiciding, especially in the developed world. Gun control obviously wouldn't address the desire to kill, but it probably would ameliorate the success rate in carrying out that desire. Pretty basic stuff. 

I agree that the roots of the desire to kill should also be addressed, and overall addressing them is more important, but reducing the success rate of murderers and suiciders would also be good. 

I don’t even disagree with you. Societies with more tightly controlled gun ownership make it harder to commit murder and suicide. But the elemental fact remains that those in favor of stricter gun control measures are not trusted by those they need to convince.

And it’s pretty basic stuff as to why this is. China is running 21st century concentration camps and people just go along with it, especially the rich and powerful in our own country. The Russian government imprisons and kills its political enemies. At home, the political party most likely to move on the issue has a base that is extremely mistrustful, with plenty of good reasons, of the enforcement arm of the government needed to produce such a policy.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:18 AM, SharkTanked said:

Oh I get that. I just don't understand how people can't be convinced by now. Attempts get shouted down by accusations of "emotionality." You can't convince people when one side won't honestly engage in debate.

Yes banning guns (which I don't think is the answer, just the continued manufacture of certain types of guns) isn't going to solve the problem. People want to kill people.

I think there is merit in making it more difficult for people to kill people. I think we can do quite a bit more in this space.

Then you gotta shout down the people that do want to ban guns. They exist. You can’t compromise when the terms laid out are unconditional surrender.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...