Forums

The earth is indeed flat

The earth is indeed flat

The internet has the opportunity to educate all. It is sad to see how it becomes a source for alternate truth and facts. Many including some on this forum use the internet to skip studies and facts and go straight to their alternate facts. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49021903

RedShift | 2019年8月6日

I’m not against any solution that is practical.

Show me your practical ideas. Other than ‘studying’ the problem I have heard zilch.

RedShift | 2019年8月6日

Here is a chart clearly showing the correlation between falls in gun violence deaths and assault weapons ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring...

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

Well, this escalated quickly...!

tew ms us | 2019年8月6日

"The Good Shepard Society" - When anything bad happens, we ask the government to fix the problem.
What surprised me about the El Paso massacre was that none of the Texas shoppers were carrying a hand gun, but the Cielo Vista Mall is a gun-free zone.

I don't want to carry a gun myself, but I'd like potential mass-killers to fear that they would be confronted by armed citizens.

SCCRENDO | 2019年8月6日

@blue adept. Yes. But far more important than the shape of the earth. I guess you need to mentally disturbed in some ways to be a mass killer. But interestingly only a minority of serial killers have mental illnesses. So yes mental illness needs to be addressed. But perhaps we need to look at other causes as well. Such as presidents encouraging white supremacists and joking about their violence. Perhaps a president should try unite the country rather than draw wedges between them. And indeed control guns
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/health/mass-murderers-mental-illness....

RedShift | 2019年8月6日

@tew ms us

“When anything bad happens, we ask the government to fix the problem.”

When 9/11 happened, it was the government that did something. Perhaps you would like call of the civilians to take a flight to Afghanistan and fought there?

How many died during 9/11? 3000. How many have died so far in 2019 due to guns? More than 8500.

I supported our troops to take all appropriate actions after 9/11.

I wish our spineless Republicans would step up and take action now.

NKYTA | 2019年8月6日

+1 Redshift

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

@MitchP85D

And you're deflecting yet again by referring to bombing incidents instead of addressing the actual issue that is before us now/yet again, i.e., guns and gun violence, which is far more prevalent that bombings.

Again, no one is disputing that mental illness or even a subset of mental illness, "radicalization", isn't an underlying motivator for some of these atrocities, it is.

However the fact still remains that 'but for' the largely unfettered/unrestricted access to all manner of firearms, especially those better suited for theaters of war than our city streets, these atrocities, these mass murders, would not have even been possible regardless of whatever mental state the perpetrator might have been in at the time.

Likewise, would gun control legislation have stopped any of the bombings? No.

But we did impose additional legislation that makes it far harder to get hold of the sort of materials required to manufacture bombs and track the sort of quantities that could be weaponized.

Would gun control legislation have stopped the 9/11 attacks? No.

But we've enacted new laws and regulations specifically designed to prevent any of our aircraft from being weaponized ever again, I mean, have you taken a flight somewhere lately? Have you come face-to-face with TSA screening? They will get all up in your shit and will even arrest you and hold you for further questioning and investigation if you refuse!

And that's the whole point...In every instance where a situation has come to light that reveled that we weren't being as vigilant as we, clearly, should have been, we've enacted the necessary additional policies, legislation, practices, or laws that serve to compensate for &/or fill those voids in our oversight to help further ensure public safety and secure our way of life...every single time, that is, with the one exception being in the case of gun violence.

Will new gun laws restricting ownership of and access to certain types of firearms stop incidents of gun violence? Probably not.

However, one thing that is clear is that if we limit the access to these various vehicles that could be weaponized to inflict mass casualties on innocent civilians, we can make a safer world for all of us to live in, as has been proven time and time again.

We're suppose to be better than our ancestors, better than our forefathers, that is the essential goal of each succeeding generation, to strive for betterment of self and our society.

Alas, but for the want and the will to enact it.

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

@andy.connor.e

Ditto.

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

@RedShift

+1

MitchP85D | 2019年8月6日

For the purpose of blowing head gaskets around here, here is my reply.

Just as the Model-S is today's Model-T, the semi-automatic rifle is nothing more than today's musket!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月6日

I do agree that just as some people should not have the right to drive, some people should not have the right to own a gun.

That is where the focus should be. But instead, you liberals immediately attack the law abiding citizen, and ignore the criminal!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月6日

I've always wondered why liberals oppose mandatory prison sentencing laws for criminals who commit crimes with guns. I think I know why. Liberals don't think criminals are the problem. Law abiding citizens are!

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

History has shown that ownership of semi-automatic rifles by even "law abiding citizens" doesn't stop them from falling into the hands of criminals/the criminally minded, which guts your entire argument.

Oh, and "muskets" are still muskets, even nowadays.

blue adept | 2019年8月6日

@jimglas

BTW, a "militia" is "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency", specifically, what is known today as the National Guard/Army National Guard/Air National Guard.

Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself.

It is interesting, though, the way you gun nutters managed to take the Congressional definition of 'militia' WAY the hell out of context to fabricate justification out of what amounts to "whole cloth" for your demand for access to all manner of firearms, and that's where the problems began.

tew ms us | 2019年8月7日

@RedShift

"When 9/11 happened, it was the government that did something. Perhaps you would like call of the civilians to take a flight to Afghanistan and fought there?"

So, in your opinion, would I have supported that policy in World Wars I & II?

Many years ago there was a joke around at Senator Ted Kennedy's expense. The boom and bust cycle of the dairy industry suffered a bad bust, and dairy farmers started slaughtering their cows to make ends meet. Milk prices went up dramatically, so Sen Kennedy assembled a committee to solve the problem. The committee found that nothing could be done for at least a year because the gestation period of cows was 11 months, so Sen Kennedy sponsored a bill to reduce it to 9 months.

So, what is "common sense" gun control? Making the entire country a gun-free zone merely raises the price of guns. Fentanyl and sex trafficing are both illegal, but, if you have the jack, you can have either one.

Another proposal that sounds good - "See something; say something". Are we to incarcerate someone who might be a psycho mass-killer? It's near impossible to frame someone for actually perpetrating a massacre, but anyone who can hack social media sites can make it look like you might.

An armed citizenry, even if that policy doubled gun-related deaths, would lead to a safer society for those who wanted to go shopping in a mall for back-to-school. Avoid frequenting raucous bars where idiots could nail you in a cross-fire and be courteous to strangers. (The Japanese culture of exaggerated courteousy evolved from the samurai era when you didn't want to offend a possibly very dangerous person.) Following those two rules should reduce anxiety about going to the movies.

RedShift | 2019年8月7日

@tewms us

“An armed citizenry, even if that policy doubled gun-related deaths, would lead to a safer society for those who wanted to go shopping in a mall for back-to-school. Avoid frequenting raucous bars where idiots could nail you in a cross-fire and be courteous to strangers.”

Demonstrably false. Refer to my graph about assault weapons earlier. And the example of Australia.

Completely illogical arguments like this is why we have what we have.

RedShift | 2019年8月7日

@tewms us

Also, a well armed ‘citizenry’ is not what the constitution says. It is ‘well armed and regulated militia’.

You gun nuts are neither.

SCCRENDO | 2019年8月7日

While we are well aware that millions of people get killed in war it seems that war also causes an increase in cardiovascular deaths. I guess that may be why I am against guns, war and violence
https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/acute-coronary-syndrome/wa...
https://heart.bmj.com/content/early/2019/05/22/heartjnl-2018-314459

jimglas | 2019年8月7日

@Redshift: it is actually "a well regulated militia", nothing about "well armed". Even if it did say well armed, we are talking about muskets

RedShift | 2019年8月7日

@jim

Thanks for the correction.

tew ms us | 2019年8月7日

@Redshift
"Demonstrably false. Refer to my graph about assault weapons earlier. And the example of Australia"
"Completely illogical arguments like this is why we have what we have."
"Also, a well armed ‘citizenry’ is not what the constitution says. It is ‘well armed and regulated militia’.
"You gun nuts are neither."

You'll need to work on your courtesy to strangers if an armed citizens plan is adopted.
I'm not making a Constitutional case for an armed citizenry; I'm saying it would be more effective than any weapons ban bill likely to come out of Congress.

Would you like to see a balanced analysis of the assault weapon ban's effects?

"Federal Assault Weapons Ban
Some might point to 1999 as a year where the ban didn’t have any effect and with school shootings and other tragic events that year, there was a definite, pronounced spike in both areas. Yet with the exception of 2010, targets have been nearly equal to the 1999 high during the ban. If the purpose was to stop violence, however, the federal gun ban didn’t accomplish this."

https://brandongaille.com/17-stunning-federal-assault-weapons-ban-statis...

Another trick the propaganda media uses to gull the unwary is:

'A reasonable analysis of mass shootings that were prevented by civilians with weapons would include events where a mass shooting (defined as 4 or more victims being shot) was either underway or very likely to begin, and was stopped by someone with a gun not operating in an official capacity as law enforcement. The following list reflects this criteria."

https://memepoliceman.com/list-of-mass-shootings-stopped-by-armed-civili...

RedShift | 2019年8月7日

@tew ms us

The metric that matters is: did the number of deaths (6+) go down during the assault weapons ban?

The answer is a resounding YES.

Your random millionaire doing the analysis is ignoring that fact.

As per your advise about being courteous : I’ll try, but you’ve already said you’d be OK if gun deaths DOUBLED if it means arming the citizenry:“An armed citizenry, even if that policy doubled gun-related deaths, would lead to a safer society for those who wanted to go shopping in a mall for back-to-school. ”

I am not okay with such a person. I mean you’re at least being honest about that horrible thing you said. But it’s a horrible thing to be okay with.

MitchP85D | 2019年8月7日

Hey blue, your argument falls flat with one question. Do criminals obey gun laws?

blue adept | 2019年8月7日

@The Forums

"Completely illogical arguments like this is why we have what we have."

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!

blue adept | 2019年8月7日

@MitchP85D

I have already said as much myself, however, stricter gun laws would serve to better regulate and provide an additional layer of protection that would act as a buffer to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, especially now in a world where there are no requirements of background checks or even ID's at these gun shows where all manner of firearms exchange hands on little more than the exchange of some money between the buyer and the seller.

Again, I'm not saying that guns should be banned outright, only that the proper protections and regulations be put into place and enforced to ensure a safer social, educational, entertainment, and shopping environment for everyone.

Just plain commonsense solutions.

blue adept | 2019年8月7日

@RedShift

"Completely illogical arguments like this is why we have what we have."

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!

+1

MitchP85D | 2019年8月7日

Common sense is enforcing the gun laws that we already have, and strengthening penalties against criminals who commit a crime with a firearm. But you liberals don't want to do that. You would rather confiscate guns from the law abiding citizens, and make them sitting ducks in a pond for the criminal class!

NKYTA | 2019年8月7日

No. Just no.

blue adept | 2019年8月8日

@MitchP85D

Part of 'common sense' is the realization that our current gun laws don't work and/or aren't effective in stopping gun violence.

As for the 'confiscation of guns', the only guns I'm aware of that people are wanting off of the streets are military style weapons that were specifically designed to cause mass casualties, i.e., semi-automatic/automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

And what is the deal about trying to assign a particular political affiliation to those who're speaking out about gun violence because we feel that we should be able to go shopping, or to outdoor events, or to the theater, or even to send our children to school without the fear of some discontent maniac with a semi-automatic rifle mowing everyone down?!

Bullets don't care one way or another whatever political affiliation you might have, don't care what gender you might be, don't care what age you are, don't care what demographic you might hail from, and doesn't care whatever your complexion might be/race you are, bullets don't care, they only kill.

You can flail about with all of your delusional nonsense, innuendo, and lies all that you want, but none of it holds any water when confronted with the truth.

tew ms us | 2019年8月8日

@Redshift
"... you’ve already said you’d be OK if gun deaths DOUBLED if it means arming the citizenry:“
"I am not okay with such a person."

I put a lot of stress on volition in my ethical considerations. The mother and father who died defending their child from the El Paso killer made a normal daily life choice that should contain no risk of death.

I'm willing to tolerate more gun deaths if people who consciously make decisions to put themselves in dangerous situations are most of the casualties.

RedShift | 2019年8月8日

That’s great tew.

Pray tell us lesser human beings all the situations that are dangerous?

You mentioned ‘crowded bars, where there is risk of cross fire deaths’. So all bars are out, most will be crowded when I want to go out.

Let’s close them down, for public safety. Probably not always, since we want to be considerate, but when they are likely to be crowded and thus, “dangerous”.

I’m sure there’s a long list of other dangerous you’d like to share, @tew?

Oh where’s the facepalm emoji when you need one.

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

blue, your attempts at disabling the maniac will only result in disabling the law abiding citizen from defending themselves. Please note that the Sutherland Springs church shooter was stopped by Stephen Willeford, and armed citizen with an AR-15!

https://www.ajc.com/blog/buzz/had-but-did-sutherland-springs-hero-hailed...

andy.connor.e | 2019年8月8日

No amount of gun laws will reduce violence at the individual level.

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

Also note that if the gun laws were properly enforced, Kelley would not have been allowed to purchase his weapons!

As I've said before. Enforce the gun laws that we already have! Making more laws will stop folks like Willeford, not Kelley!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

Andy, correct!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

Question for you goofy liberals. Do you think Willeford should have been arrested?

SCCRENDO | 2019年8月8日

None of us have any objection to sane trained people carrying firearms and using them when necessary. It's the free uncontrolled availability of arsenals to any crazy who shows up at a gun show that concerns us. Firearms and those possessing them needed to be licensed. There needs to be background checks and definite controls. Professionals like teachers, physicians, pilots that take responsibility for people's well being and lives need to be tested for competency and licensed. Why would you expect a lesser standard for gun owners? Also. It would be nice for everyone to be protected but I do not want to live in that kind of environment. Let's address the issues Make guns less accessable, treat mental illness, focus on addressing grievances. Our president instead of being a healer stokes grievances and hatred. He is a white supremacist and by promoting hatred he is responsible for these recent shootings. I understand that the crazy shooter in Dayton was Antifa and condemn it as loudly as I condemn the other shootings.. But antifa is a direct reaction to the rise of violent white supremacy.

RedShift | 2019年8月8日

@sccrendo

Exactly. We are not against individuals owing non-assault style weapons for self defense.

andy.connor.e | 2019年8月8日

+10 @SCC

sabbia | 2019年8月8日

No excuses for the Dayton shooter here, but SCC, is there a credible source that he was Antifa?

There is some evidence that he showed up armed at a Klan rally.

It doesn't really matter and the shooting should rightfully be condemned. I just would like a correct record.

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

Yes silly sabby. SCCRENDODO is correct!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

Consider that your credible source!

MitchP85D | 2019年8月8日

SCCRENDODO, does it bother you that Stephen Willeford has an AR-15?

SCCRENDO | 2019年8月8日

@sabbia. I definitely saw that he was left leaning and they suggested he was antifa. But that is exactly the point. I condemn all sorts of terrorists no matter what their religion philosophy etc.

blue adept | 2019年8月9日

Had we the proper gun laws in place there would be an exponentially less likelihood of any "maniac" getting hold of any, @MitchP85D, that's what I'm telling you and the MASSIVE gun show loophole validates what I'm telling you, ergo, it's not that the laws aren't being enforced, it's that the proper laws aren't on the books yet to be enforced so that all of our 'law abiding citizens' can buy and own guns while marginalizing, if not altogether eliminating, the potential for those "maniac" types getting their hands on them.

If you actually are a "law abiding citizen" then you want the proper laws on the books to abide by which will keep guns out of the hands of maniacs far better than the absence of those very laws are doing now, as real world events prove.

SCCRENDO | 2019年8月9日

@Blue Adept. And some of the laws such as background checks and the assault weapons ban were allowed to lapse by the greedy Republicans who are like hookers willing to sell their souls to anyone with money such as the NRA and the white supremacist in chief on whom they believe they are dependent for re-election

blue adept | 2019年8月9日

@andy.connor.e

Probably true, however, proper gun laws would help to eliminate one more tool from the relative arsenal available to those so inclined to enact their violence, which provides a solution for this problem we're having and seems to be increasingly pervasive, even to the point of gun violence being described as the "new normal".

Doing nothing because we don't think it will stop people from being violent doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything at all/what we can to curb the spread of the violence by limiting the bad actors among us ability to manifest their violence on the public-at-large at will.

blue adept | 2019年8月9日

@SCCRENDO

Can you provide any information stipulating that those laws were allowed to lapse?

If so, that could demonstrate a direct correlation between their lapse and the recent shootings which amounts to 'probable cause' for legal action against those who allowed those laws to lapse of recalled them.

"?????????"

Pages