Disgusted with Progressives

• like_that

  

  kizer permanente;1880632 wrote:I actually agree with the bolded. And I think I have mentioned that on here too. But, like I also mentioned, the same people crying about not taking their guns, don't want to subsidize mental healthcare in America too. We quit that years ago. Its not a profitable stand to campaign on, so you won't see either side rally around it. So it's just lip service at this point. "It's a mental health issue...but ill be damned if I pay for it."

  I'm not one to have the state pay for everything, but perhaps we could save some chunk change billions by decriminalizing drugs and focusing on mental health. All in all though, I believe nonprofits could do a much better job, if people had more of their own money to spend.
• Automatik

  

  like_that;1880633 wrote:I guess I don't see the reason to get your panties in a bunch over people sending their condolences, while also defending their 2nd amendment rights. Do you mock other people for sending their thoughts and/or prayers (thoughts alone don't have a religious attachment to it) when somebody close to them passes away? What else would you like them to say after someone tragically passes?
  
  Just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of this, but from my experience ( I know others have noticed), and you really don't need to look that far, but liberals tend to get butt hurt when Muslims are criticized or mocked. I can't tell you how many of my friends have gotten butt hurt over me making mild Muslim jokes, meanwhile these same people make jesus and jew jokes all the time and laugh their asses off.

  You're looking wayyyyy too far into my 3 word post. I'm from a Catholic family. My post was made in jest mocking people who immediately run to their social media platform of choice after an event like this happens. It's just more of the "look at me" culture that we're in today.
• queencitybuckeye

  Automatik;1880627 wrote: As far as liberals defending Islam? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I must have missed that post/thread.

  The example that comes to mind is the idiot mayor of NYC declaring it too early to politicize the terrorist act with the Home Depot truck, but the bodies weren't even cold before the left brought out their anti-gun talking points this week.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  My highly unpopular and unrealistic opinion: Bring back insane asylums, exempting lobotomies (maybe) and other cruel "treatments".
  Read more:
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation
  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201503/the-history-and-rise-mass-public-shootings
• CenterBHSFan

  

  like_that;1880633 wrote:Just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of this, but from my experience ( I know others have noticed), and you really don't need to look that far, but liberals tend to get butt hurt when Muslims are criticized or mocked. I can't tell you how many of my friends have gotten butt hurt over me making mild Muslim jokes, meanwhile these same people make jesus and jew jokes all the time and laugh their asses off.

  It's always been my thought that these types of people are the ones who tend to be the most anxious and phobic and are desperately trying to screen it out/away.
• like_that

  

  Automatik;1880637 wrote:You're looking wayyyyy too far into my 3 word post. I'm from a Catholic family. My post was made in jest mocking people who immediately run to their social media platform of choice after an event like this happens. It's just more of the "look at me" culture that we're in today.

  It's kinda hard to tell where you were going with it. Considering a lot of people on the left are mocking "thoughts and prayers" and you quoted SQ's post (asking for a solution) with an all caps "thoughts and prayers." Maybe you can see why I thought you were mocking that as a solution to gun crime.
  
  BTW, case in point with what I was talking about regarding defending Muslims and and mocking all other religions. For about a week we were lectured by the media about how Allah Akbar actually means "god is great" and it isn't a symbol of hate. A week later, you have celebrities, media, and politicians attacking and mocking people for sending their condolences to a tragic event. You can't make this shit up.
• Automatik

  

  queencitybuckeye;1880639 wrote:The example that comes to mind is the idiot mayor of NYC declaring it too early to politicize the terrorist act with the Home Depot truck, but the bodies weren't even cold before the left brought out their anti-gun talking points this week.

  I actually agree with him regarding gathering correct information before jumping to conclusions. I recall some wanting to pin the Vegas shooting on ISIS. No reason to give them credit for something they weren't involved in.
  
  Personally, as soon as it was confirmed by witnesses that Allahu Akbar was shouted. Politicize away!
• queencitybuckeye

  Automatik;1880643 wrote:I actually agree with him regarding gathering correct information before jumping to conclusions.

  I do as well. I'm just not sure why there's an exemption to this logic when the weapon is a firearm.
• Heretic

  

  queencitybuckeye;1880639 wrote:The example that comes to mind is the idiot mayor of NYC declaring it too early to politicize the terrorist act with the Home Depot truck, but the bodies weren't even cold before the left brought out their anti-gun talking points this week.

  Which is the same as people saying "don't politicalize this right away" when it comes to instances like this, but immediately rush to politicalize things the instant a non-white person is the one doing the killing.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  like_that;1880631 wrote:The bolded is factually incorrect.
  
  Also, based on the loose definition of "mass shootings" a lot of those deaths occur during gang related incidents.
  
  The "causes" always stem from the person committing the crime whether it's a gun, bomb, knife, sword, poison, vehicle, etc. The reasons as we have seen vary (hate crime, political, extreme ideology, mental health, and/or a combination of them all).
  
  Again, what do you propose after these "assault" weapons you speak of are banned and gun crime statistics stay relatively the same? Do you realize you realize your essentially punishing millions of people, because of a few pieces of shit? We should've banned flying all together after 9/11.

  Since 1965, there have been 27 mass shootings worldwide with 10 or more fatalities. 15 of those have occurred in the US. These are the events I'm referring to. I'm not referring to all gun crime because I understand that most gun crime is tied to some sort of drug/gang typed violence. As far as I know, none of these (the US shootings) were gang related/drug crime events.
  
  So that we don't punish any innocent gun owners, what else is there to do to address these?
  
  
  [h=2]The Deadliest Mass Shootings In History[/h]

  • View information as a:
  • List
  • Chart

  Rank	Mass Shooting Location	Victims
  1	Norway, Oslo/Utoeya (2011)	77
  2	USA, Las Vegas (2017)	59
  3	USA, Orlando, Florida (2016)	49
  4	Australia, Port Arthur (1996)	35
  5	USA, Blacksburg, Virginia (2007)	32
  6	USA, Newtown, Connecticut (2012)	27
  7	USA, Killeen, Texas (1991)	23
  8	USA, San Ysidro, California (1984)	21
  9	Brazil (1997)	17
  10	Scotland, Dunblane (1996)	17
  11	Germany, Erfurt (2002)	16
  12	England, Hungerford (1987)	16
  13	USA, Austin, Texas (1966)	16
  14	Germany, Winnenden (2009)	15
  15	Switzerland, Zug (2001)	14
  16	USA, Edmond, Oklahoma (1986)	14
  17	New Zealand, Aramoana (1990)	13
  18	USA, Fort Hood, Texas (2009)	13
  19	USA, Littleton, Colorado (1999)	13
  20	USA, Binhampton, New York (2009)	13
  21	France, Toulon (1995)	13
  22	USA, Aurora, Texas (2012)	12
  23	Azerbaijan, Baku (2009)	12
  24	USA, Atlanta, Georgia (1999)	12
  25	USA, Jacksonville, Florida (1990)	10
  26	Finland, Kauhajok (2008)	10
  27	USA, Alabama (2009)	10

  [/FONT][/COLOR]
• QuakerOats

  Thanks. I still prefer to live in the U.S., as is.
• queencitybuckeye

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880647 wrote: So that we don't punish any innocent gun owners, what else is there to do to address these?
  
  

  Instead of listing mass shootings, list all mass killings instead, which will yield a list both less U.S.-centric, and less gun-centric. IOW, it will show the table to be cherry-picked to make your point.
• like_that

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880647 wrote:Since 1965, there have been 27 mass shootings worldwide with 10 or more fatalities. 15 of those have occurred in the US. These are the events I'm referring to. I'm not referring to all gun crime because I understand that most gun crime is tied to some sort of drug/gang typed violence. As far as I know, none of these (the US shootings) were gang related/drug crime events.
  
  So that we don't punish any innocent gun owners, what else is there to do to address these?
  
  
  The Deadliest Mass Shootings In History
  
  

  • View information as a:
  • List
  • Chart

  Rank	Mass Shooting Location	Victims
  1	Norway, Oslo/Utoeya (2011)	77
  2	USA, Las Vegas (2017)	59
  3	USA, Orlando, Florida (2016)	49
  4	Australia, Port Arthur (1996)	35
  5	USA, Blacksburg, Virginia (2007)	32
  6	USA, Newtown, Connecticut (2012)	27
  7	USA, Killeen, Texas (1991)	23
  8	USA, San Ysidro, California (1984)	21
  9	Brazil (1997)	17
  10	Scotland, Dunblane (1996)	17
  11	Germany, Erfurt (2002)	16
  12	England, Hungerford (1987)	16
  13	USA, Austin, Texas (1966)	16
  14	Germany, Winnenden (2009)	15
  15	Switzerland, Zug (2001)	14
  16	USA, Edmond, Oklahoma (1986)	14
  17	New Zealand, Aramoana (1990)	13
  18	USA, Fort Hood, Texas (2009)	13
  19	USA, Littleton, Colorado (1999)	13
  20	USA, Binhampton, New York (2009)	13
  21	France, Toulon (1995)	13
  22	USA, Aurora, Texas (2012)	12
  23	Azerbaijan, Baku (2009)	12
  24	USA, Atlanta, Georgia (1999)	12
  25	USA, Jacksonville, Florida (1990)	10
  26	Finland, Kauhajok (2008)	10
  27	USA, Alabama (2009)	10

  [/FONT][/COLOR]

  Conveniently ignoring other types of mass crimes (truck in Nice for example) to support your agenda?
  
  As for the bolded, you're cherry picking rare events to create measures to ban certain guns. Again, the data does not support your suggestion.
  
  I chose all gun crime, because it encompasses all gun deaths and the people who will be affected the most by banning the guns you want to be banned are completely innocent people. When you use exceptions to the rule (in the case mass shootings are extremely rare compared to overall gun crime), you are not making a good point. It's no different than the politicians grandstanding with the same BS just to make it seem like they are trying to make a difference, when they know their suggestions are severely flawed. I stand by my suggestions to decrease overall gun crime. It is disingenuous to rank certain types of gun deaths over others, especially when one solution is to decrease ALL crime and the other is to try and decrease a small portion of those crimes.
• O-Trap

  

  Well my goodness. Didn't this thread get busy.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:There will always be ways to kill people available to these people. The cost to society of eliminating automobiles because they are dangerous is incalculable. They are produced for a multitude of uses that allow the functioning of the world.

  That is true. However, I would argue that the ability to defend one's individual property in a society that recognizes such individual property is equally necessary for functioning within that society.
  
  Also, while we can look at it from the cost standpoint, banning vehicles would be far more effective because of the difficulty of concealing a vehicle as opposed to a gun.
  
  I'm being facetious, of course, but not all bans themselves are created equal, and the market for a banned piece of property doesn't necessarily go down just because it is banned. The opposite even results sometimes.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880548 wrote:Assault/powerful weapons are made for one purpose. They are military grade weapons.

  AR-15s are not, as has been said. They just look more like an M-4 than most other semi-auto hunting rifles.
  

  iclfan2;1880549 wrote:... what happens to the millions already on the street?

  And let's not pretend that we, as the biggest consumer nation, wouldn't be a wet dream for illegal arms importers.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880565 wrote:Why is it the weapon of choice for many of these mass shooters?

  There would be a couple reasons:
  
  1. The most sensible one would be if the shooter had mid-range targets en masse, like the Vegas shooter did.
  
  2. The shooter knows he's going to be on the news, and he wants any footage to look scary.
  
  3. They've become largely popularized by the media attention they get.
  
  4. The shooter is generally a dipshit.
  
  Two semi-auto handguns with some heft to them (so as to absorb the kick a little more) would be far more viable for mass carnage in short order.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880566 wrote:If the guns aren't the factor, how do you explain these large mass shootings not happening elsewhere? Mental health? There are mentally ill people everywhere in the world? Poverty? Our rate of poverty is lower than many other countries that don't have these types of mass shootings. So what is it? If its not the fact that we own more guns per capita of any country in the world (by a long shot), then what is it that causes these?

  Mass shootings? Population size.
  
  We're a bigger country than most from the standpoint of sheer population. Most phenomena are going to happen more frequently here for the same reason that more D1 college players come out of large high schools as opposed to small ones. The pool from which to find that level of talent is larger.
  
  In the same way, our population being larger means we have a larger "pool" from which someone capable of a mass shooting might come.
  

  queencitybuckeye;1880568 wrote:In every mass shooting, when someone arrives at the scene with roughly equal firepower, the killer either flees or kills himself. The killing stops. Is making this equalizer harder to get really a step forward in reducing the carnage? Doesn't seem so.

  This is an excellent point, and one I don't see made often enough, from even the pro side.
  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880592 wrote:Okay, it's not the guns. Then what is it that is driving these huge mass shootings here? Why are they not happening in any way comparable in other western countries?

  They do. But we're the country in the lime light, so it's publicized much more widely, and again, because we're also larger, it does happen more frequently (not per capita, but because of sheer volume).
  

  kizer permanente;1880608 wrote:So if gun legislation isn't the answer, what is the answer? I see people cite crime statistics with and without gun legislation, but I never see an opinion offered to what they think is the answer. Is there no answer? We just live with it? Don't do anything about it? Is that the answer?

  Whenever this question comes up (If not legislation, then what?), I sometimes borrow the name of a fallacious line of reasoning among some religious people. This smacks of "government in the gaps," not unlike the reason some people find answers in a deity. The "God of the gaps" idea is that people plant God as the answer to things that otherwise don't seem to have a clear answer, but doing so is correctly viewed as a flawed system. Just because we don't have a good answer at the time of asking the question, throwing out the "God did it" answer isn't adequate.
  
  In the same way, not having a solution to this problem doesn't justify throwing out the "let government do it" proposed solution, either.
  

  Automatik;1880609 wrote:THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!!

  #chuckle
  
  Granted, some people are REALLY going after the whole "thoughts and prayers" thing way too hard, but this was still funny.
  

  queencitybuckeye;1880612 wrote:We might want to consider the opposite approach as always seems to be suggested. Since nearly all, if not all mass killings tend to occur in "gun-free zones"...

  You'll NEVER get that passed. Most pro-gun people are even in favor of some of the gun legislation currently in place.
  

  iclfan2;1880614 wrote:The same liberals who defended the Muslims use of allah akbar last week were the ones making fun of Christians this week for sending prayers for a tragedy. Mocking one religion while defending another one is how you get Trump in the first place.

  Thoughts technically are irreligious.
  

  iclfan2;1880614 wrote:Also, let’s here how you could have stopped any of these attacks other than repealing the 2nd amendment. Bc that isn’t happening.

  I would argue that even repealing the second amendment wouldn't fix it. It would just change the rules of the game, but the players would still play.
  

  Heretic;1880617 wrote:Oh well, I'm not running for anything, so fuck all your fake gods.

  Fuck you, too!
  

  Automatik;1880619 wrote:As for how to prevent these events? I don't know the answer, but "thoughts and prayers" don't to shit.

  I mean ... I don't think they're intended to "do" anything other than express sympathies/condolences. And for that, they appear to work fairly well.
  
  Sure, "I swear to you on my father's grave that I will avenge your loved one," sounds nice, and perhaps it would 'do' more than "thoughts and prayers," but they're not meant to accomplish the same thing.
  

  Automatik;1880627 wrote:I just find it funny that most conservatives are quick to offer thoughts and prayers (this is based on my social media feeds) but once someone brings up addressing gun legislation, they get all "zomg don't take muh gunz!"

  Again, I think the two responses are not intended to do the same thing. One is to express sympathy. The other is over actual legislation.
  

  like_that;1880635 wrote:I'm not one to have the state pay for everything, but perhaps we could save some chunk change billions by decriminalizing drugs and focusing on mental health. All in all though, I believe nonprofits could do a much better job, if people had more of their own money to spend.

  Truth be told, I don't actually think this is a mental health thing, either. The BJS report I posted earlier showed that about 88.6% of weapons that prison inmates possessed at the time of their offense were NOT purchased through gun retailers, flea markets, gun shows, or pawn shops. 77.4% were either obtained from loved ones or bought illegally.
• jmog

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880591 wrote:No, I'm not meaning that. Poorly phrased. What I mean is that in other developed countries, the large mass shootings are either much rarer or nonexistent unlike here.

  The terrorists/insane people just change out a gun for a car, fertilizer bomb, etc. The mass killings happen in the same type of rate, just the weapon of choice maybe different in those countries.
• jmog

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880598 wrote:I am not ignoring anything on purpose. I'm just wondering what makes these events so much more common here than in other similar countries. If it is not the prevalence of guns, fine. But then what is the reason?

  If you replace the phrase "mass shooting" with "mass killing" therefore the weapon of choice is irrelevant, they do NOT happen more often here. The weapons are just different.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  queencitybuckeye;1880656 wrote:Instead of listing mass shootings, list all mass killings instead, which will yield a list both less U.S.-centric, and less gun-centric. IOW, it will show the table to be cherry-picked to make your point.

  For purposes of this debate, I'm talking only of mass shootings.
• like_that

  

  It’s pretty obvious boogie is going to keep moving the goalposts.
• jmog

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880668 wrote:For purposes of this debate, I'm talking only of mass shootings.

  If you can't see mass killings as the problem and not just mass shootings, then you really can't be helped to understand.
• queencitybuckeye

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880668 wrote:For purposes of this debate, I'm talking only of mass shootings.

  Which renders the "debate" meaningless.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  jmog;1880671 wrote:If you can't see mass killings as the problem and not just mass shootings, then you really can't be helped to understand.

  To eat the elephant, you take one bite at a time. That's why I'm focusing on mass shootings. These guys that go into public places with their weapons and shoot anyone. Hypothetically if you eliminated this specific type of event, you will still have lots of violent crime to contend with; I acknowledge that. But now you'd have one terrible aspect of it reduced. Isn't that better than no change?
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  queencitybuckeye;1880672 wrote:Which renders the "debate" meaningless.

  If it does to you, that's fine.
• queencitybuckeye

  The reality is you're getting your ass handed to you and you're scrambling to find a way out.
• O-Trap

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880668 wrote:For purposes of this debate, I'm talking only of mass shootings.

  Curious. Why? Are deaths-by-truck somehow less horrible than deaths-by-gunshot?
  
  Moreover, there is an argument that removing guns from the equation (and it isn't as though we can put that toothpaste back in the tube) would simply change how mass murderers would kill. The use of alternatives supports this notion, it would seem.
  
  What bothers me most about the topic is that too many people want to win instead of actually figuring out the solution. What if it actually isn't too many guns ... or too few guns ... or mental health ... or education reform ... or the war on drugs? Are we so committed to assuming that we have the answer that we refuse to acknowledge that we might be wrong?
• O-Trap

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1880673 wrote:These guys that go into public places with their weapons and shoot anyone. Hypothetically if you eliminated this specific type of event, you will still have lots of violent crime to contend with; I acknowledge that. But now you'd have one terrible aspect of it reduced. Isn't that better than no change?

  If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Your hypothetical simply isn't realistic. No amount of legislation would significantly change the dynamic for how violent offenders obtain guns.
  
  I'll post this one more time, but I'll actually include the chart this time:
  
  
  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
  
  Also, given the sheer volume of violent crime, or even the subset of gun-related violent crime, focusing on something that only counts for this small a percentage would seem like changing this car's air freshener because it smelled like sulfur and burnt flesh: