Another US shooting..

[FourAceDeal]

You mentioned Mental Health and Gun violence again on another thread.  Are you about to finally post some sort of source material or research on the subject?

I did and it is as plain as the nose on one's face.

I can't find the post you are referring to.  Could you please repost the evidence you are referring to.

You obviously mistook the hard evidence for a circular pile of waffle. I've been known to make the same mistake myself at times.

Al seems to think he posted up something to back up his claim.  I guess we both missed it.

[Al Swearegen]

I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0

[odeon]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.

There used to be tribes in the Pacific that ate people. It was a cultural thing but they managed to change.

[Al Swearegen]

I'm saying that the 2d amendment excuse is bullshit, yes. It's an utterly lame excuse. Your comparing that with Finland only shows your ignorance of both.

It is one that many Americans hold onto dearly. You do not need to convince me though I am not American.

As to what I said about Finland and their fight against the Soviets is far from ignorant and you would know this. What was expected to be a very quick endeavor proved anything but. The Finnish people put up a resistance that was incredible and over many many months. camouflage, Guerilla tactics, knowledge of the terrain, and the terrible Winter all played to The Finnish resistance and against the Soviets. The great numbers and more sophisticated were countered by the above.

You do realise that guns are properly regulated in Finland, right?

The 2d amendment is about a well-regulated militia. That should provide a clue here. You're advocating the individual's supposed right to carry firearms--parroting the NRA, basically--which is very, very different. Do I actually need to spell out that difference?

You can certainly try and I understand you line of argument BUT AGAIN, you do not need to convince me. The thing is that IF and I will underline it IF the American Government becomes tyrannical individuals the Government may likely wish to take away guns and they have done that with a number of Tyrannical regimes. Should this happen or be attempted, gun regulations and a list of gun owners will make it easier for a Tyrannical Government to do so.

SHOULD such a thing occur, citizens may wish to organise in a militia to defend their Constitutional Rights AND they will need all the guns to defend their Rights as they can get.

Now. Your argument may be something along the lines of:

* Tyrannical Government in America....pfft like that would ever happen
* A well organised militia doesn't exist and so the point is mute.
* This is just NRA fear-mongering
* Guns are bad
* Other countries don't need these archaic texts
* Considering the amount of death this causes their population maybe regardless of their "rights" maybe it is a decent trade-off

Any or all of these are reasonable counters BUT so is the premise AND it is embedded in the Constitution and in the culture. I am Australian we have guns but we do not have this Constitutional/cultural attachment to guns. So you do not need to convince me. Their culture and their laws and their history are unique to them and part of their National Identity. I am not going to devalue it.

There used to be tribes in the Pacific that ate people. It was a cultural thing but they managed to change.

Yes, Sweden could change its flag, rewrite its history and renounce its laws. But it probably would not be a good idea to.

[odeon]

So...

Guns are a cultural thing.
Guns are a constitutional thing.
There's the threat of the tyrannical government.
Plus, it may be a decent trade-off.
And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway.

This about right?

[Al Swearegen]

So...

Guns are a cultural thing.
Guns are a constitutional thing.
There's the threat of the tyrannical government.
Plus, it may be a decent trade-off.
And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway.

This about right?

One by one?

Are guns a cultural thing? Guns in general? Guns in the US generally? Guns in many parts of the US? It would be the latter.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/06/exp-van-jones-special-cnntv.cnn
These guys, for example, Need high powered rifles for hunting which they admitted they use when food is scarce. It is an important staple of their life. No doubt part of their culture from when they were little and when their grandparents were little.

Guns are a constitutional thing. Yup 2nd Amendment is held in high regard in US. Sweden does not have a 2nd amendment in the Constitution and neither does Australia. So how important is it to us? Not a lot. Why would it be? The first Amendment before it concerns Freedom of Speech. These protected Constitutional Amendments are enshrined in the Constitution that underpins America.

There's the threat of the tyrannical government. Is there? Could there be? Damned if I know. Certainly, I see no reason to think it likely but then there is a Hell of a lot of sunlight between unlikely and impossible, and I am not going to try to breach that. The people who wrote that Amendment believed the safeguards warranted and a lot of Americans and constitutional scholars and other learned people do think those safeguards are good.

Plus, it may be a decent trade-off. Depends not what I mean but how you see it? The people in the clip above, having guns means in down times they can both put food on the table and direct some of their income to other necessaries like I dunno medicine. So a trade-off may be less access to hunting rifles may mean a trade-off to not eating in down times BUT may mean the chances of hunting accidents, children getting hold of guns, undesirable getting hold of their guns for unlawful use or other such admirable protections. Either one could be traded off. Sacrifice one and Empower the other. Trade-off. Now expand such individual trade-offs to 300 million people all with different needs wants and experiences.

And only mentally ill people shoot other people anyway. I have not said that. I have not intimated that and I have not given rise for ANY thinking person to figure this to be the case. So I have no idea why you are asking and no I will not humour anyone here to pretend their ignorance to my belief of this.

Is that at all clearer?

[FourAceDeal]

I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0

In the interest of fairness, I'm not going to critique it for a couple of days.  I'll give you a chance to change it for something better, because taking this down is going to be no challenge at all.  A five year old with google could have done better.

[odeon]

Can't be bothered with any of it, to be honest. This is going in circles.

[Al Swearegen]

I am probably making it all up. Only mentally healthy people go on mass killings

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XV4mZi3gYDgwx5PrLwqqHTUlHkwkV-6uy_yeJh3X46o/edit#gid=0

In the interest of fairness, I'm not going to critique it for a couple of days.  I'll give you a chance to change it for something better, because taking this down is going to be no challenge at all.  A five year old with google could have done better.

It took me about two minutes.

Mother Jones is a trash Progressive site worse than Buzzfeed or HuffPost.

To be completely honest I did not expect any articles to come up. Now, why would that be? Because unpopular or unacceptable or confronting points of view are squashed. Find a Progressive-friendly position and you will find buckets of articles and websites on that Position. Try the exercise with a non-Progressive position....you will struggle.

The only reason I went to Mother Jones of all places is because in their efforts to drum up some narrative (did I read the article? No I didn't) they went into areas unfamiliar to Progressive narratives and being Mother Jones and the Feminist capital they have, they were not buried. So I said "Yup, where is the survey?". A few clicks and I found the spreadsheet.

The thing is that if your whole argument is an "argumentum ad populum" then cool run with that but it does not impress me.

The Earth is flat point out the number of people that believed a thousand years ago? A lot? Was there any truth in it? Were there any dissenters? Were their opinions respected? What happened to their opinions? Do you believe more people believe x = X is the best opinon?



If Twitter is run by Jack Dorsey an avid Progressive and Black Lives matter supporter and he has people like Anita Sarkessian in charge of policing their content.
Reddit is run by Steve Huffman, a Hillary fan and admitted Progressive.
Facebook is run by Hillary and Merkel fan - Silicon Democrat Mark Zuckerburg who threatened to run on Democrat ticket for President in 2020.
Google and Youtube? Same story.

The individual efforts to curate their websites and promote pro-Progressive views and ban or censor views that are not aligning with their own not only supresses information but it makes a one size fits all approach to looking at the world.

Though there may be a concerted collusion between them,  I think it more likely they are simply following the path that leads them to similar results.

[odeon]

Honestly, I have literally no idea what you're on about.

[renaeden]

Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.

[Calandale]

I hate these things. They spoil all the interesting news.

[Icequeen]

Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.

Read some of his posts and saw the Instagram account ...and there are kids saying they always thought he was a risk for doing something like this.

WTH.

 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Another one. 18 people killed. Apparently they found some very "disturbing" information about the shooter on the internet.

Read some of his posts and saw the Instagram account ...and there are kids saying they always thought he was a risk for doing something like this.

WTH.

He had actually been on the radar screen of both local law enforcement and the FBI.

The red flags were there but the necessary protocols to take action weren't in place.

People who knew the guy thought he was capable of doing something like this.

He was able to slip through the cracks somehow.

[odeon]

Honestly, I can't be arsed to comment on this, but *cough* stricter gun laws *cough*.