49
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 07:29 am
@Glennn,
Are you actually interested in talking regulations? (You didn't answer this question) Because there is little point discussing such if you are not.

Still, if you are interested, I have generalised previously in this thread about the type of regulation I prefer.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 07:38 am
@camlok,
Quote:
It's not a theory. The evidence is that you can never provide any evidence.
And this is why you are having difficulty trying to understand the 'inconsistency'.

You think that everyone must be interested in 9-11. As I've said several times, I disagree with the wars that followed (and did so before they became unpopular). So I have no vested interest in either the official version, or your version, or any other version. Would your version of 9-11 change my view on anything else - I doubt it. To sum up, I'm not interested enough in 9-11 to try providing evidence to support anyone's version.

Discussion is a different matter.

I found a number of your points interesting, but found as many holes in it as problems you pointed out with the official version. You disagree...again, that's fine. You think others must be lying, or scared, etc, to disagree...again that's fine. It doesn't make you right, nor does it make the official version right.

All that said - this is a thread on guns.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 08:48 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
Would your version of ... .


Bolded is mine.

This clearly illustrates your deception, your dishonesty, your inability to address reality. But carry on with your discussion with Glennn.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 09:22 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
I have generalised previously in this thread about the type of regulation I prefer.

Yeah, I could go thr0ugh the thread and find it, but if you can't recall your generalized type of regulation, then perhaps it's you who don't care to talk about the regulations you're talking about.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 09:35 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
Mass shooting has emotional connotations to it, that people use for political agendas, yes.

An emotional political response is the only reason for using the term, it serves no other purpose and actually keeps the actual events from being talked about.

Quote:
In Australia, other than the Domestic Mass Shooting I mentioned, I can't recall another such domestic incident like it, perhaps the Singh Murders where a jilted boyfriend murders his girlfriend and her siblings in Brisbane (unknown weapon if any - he boiled the bodies in a spa).

I just provided you a link to a story talking about 3 different family murders taking place in as many months. You don't know about them because they didn't involve a gun. Ignorant of events in your own country?

Quote:
Nor are mass shootings common - they are extremely rare. It is not really an issue in this country. So my use of it doesn't carry the US use of it. For me, I see it as very apt.

They are rare, so you have to falsely apply them to other crimes to boost the numbers for more gun control. I even provided a link to a story where the governor of the area said he would have to find out the facts of the case before thinking about new gun laws... Don't be daft.

Quote:
The guy wasn't going to run over the parties that were in their business (unless it was very open), nor the others in their house. It's unlikely he knew how to make a bomb. Why then use them as comparison. Seriously?

So from the Aussie shooting to the US shooting...
The US shooting will be a "crime of passion" and not what is usually refered to as a "mass shooting". It's unlikely he knew how to make a bomb? What's likely is that this was a last minute crime and not planned out. He targeted specific people for a specific reason and not the general public as is usually the case with mass shootings and even school shootings. Indiscriminate killing is usually the hallmark of a mass shooting.

Quote:
Even so, I had also previously mentioned both bombs, and cars as a method of mass murder, and I would have no hesitation discussing the means in either of those two scenarios. So why make an exemption for firearms? Because that is what it would be...an avoidance.

You failed to answer if you would call someone killing their family with a knife a mass knife attack or even a mass stabbing?

Quote:
Most crimes aren't murder.

The subject was murder and the types of weapons used. The only time people concentrate on the weapon involved is with a gun and in those cases it makes a difference if it is a handgun or an AR-15 type weapon. When an AR is used, the shootings make the news for days, when a handgun is used the crime is hardly mentioned at all.

Quote:
No, the media almost always nominates the weapon when they know a weapon was used. Most people talk about the weapon when the weapon was used. There is nothing unusual about this at all.

As I noted above, the only weapon that gets mass coverage is a gun. If that gun was a handgun, it's a smaller story, when it's an AR type weapon that becomes to story.

Quote:
That's the problem with assumptions. I like guns. Used them from about the age of 12, with air rifles, onto .22's when didn't need to be licensed, and still go down to the firing range from time to time. A large percentage of Australians like guns, and I'm all for that. The difference in our approach is the regulation of guns.

Gun regulation? Aussie land can keep their laws and we in the US will keep our gun laws. I like my freedom just the way it is, you can have "rights" that are granted by the govt, my rights are granted by the US Constitution.



camlok
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 10:16 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
An emotional political response is the only reason for using the term, it serves no other purpose and actually keeps the actual events from being talked about.


Fatuous fatuous fatuous. [look it up]

There has been much discussion after every massacre.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 04:06 pm
@Glennn,
I don't particularly care to talk about regulation (or just about any subject) with people who have no interest in regulations (or the corresponding 'any subject). How could anything productive, or even interesting disagreement, come out of it? If you get any response at all, it's usually one eyed nitpicking, purely for the sake of argument, rather than any exchange of ideas.

You avoid like the plague saying you're actually interested in discussing regulation.

All of the below, I've said before in this thread. My interest in regulation is keeping guns out of the hands of:
- domestically violent people
- people with criminal history for violence
- mentally ill
- there seems to be another category that I'm not remembering off the top of my head

As a personal view, I think semi-auto's aren't needed (even though I really enjoyed shooting them as a teenager).

And of course, everyone should be licensed, which is one of the necessities if you want to regulate.

Of course, I've also said that each country needs to decide what regulation is appropriate for itself.

So yes, I've discussed regulation throughout my posts in this thread. It's no secret, and I'm pretty sure you've seen me say most of this.

And I did mean what I said - there's little point discussing regulation (and I mean a detailed discussion) with a person who has no interest in regulation. Why you feel the need to try and turn 'whether or not you are interested in it' into a big dance, I really don't know.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 04:20 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
An emotional political response is the only reason for using the term
I disagree. I've already explained why.

And in any event, this is a thread about guns. It is incredibly appropriate to use the term here.
Quote:
it serves no other purpose and actually keeps the actual events from being talked about
Umm...no. People still discuss the background. Every article on the domestic shooting you linked, has discussed the background in detail. They don't just go 'oh a firearm was involved, I'll stop talking about anything else'.

Quote:
I just provided you a link to a story talking about 3 different family murders taking place in as many months. You don't know about them because they didn't involve a gun. Ignorant of events in your own country?
Possibly. I don't watch the News on principle. I do read newspapers online, and it usually shows my State's news first, so missing some events, particularly in other States, is always going to happen.

I will say that when talking mass, I think of more than two, for which I would use the term 'double', and it does carry connotations of moving around (so a driving a family vehicle into a dam, which has happened, doesn't immediately come to mind)

And in any event, mass gun homicides, as I said previously, are so rare in Australia, that they will always become headline news.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
As I noted above, the only weapon that gets mass coverage is a gun. If that gun was a handgun, it's a smaller story, when it's an AR type weapon that becomes to story.
We don't have AR type guns over here (legally). The firearm used by the farmer would have been a bolt action (the clip size is usually limited to a rather small size as well)
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 06:56 pm
No guns allowed at Kent State open-carry rally
Published: September 14, 2018 - 6:53 PM | Updated: September 14, 2018 - 7:47 PM

Beacon Journal/Ohio.com

Kent State University is allowing a Second Amendment rally to take place on its main campus — except no one is allowed to bring guns.

The university confirmed Friday that it has approved conservative political group Liberty Hangout’s request to host an open-carry gun rally Sept. 29 on Risman Plaza but banned guns from the event.

Because the event is sponsored by a student organization, all participants — even non-students –must follow student activity policies, the university said in a prepared statement.

The KSU Policy Regarding Deadly Weapons states “students, staff, faculty and third parties during business with the university are further prohibited from possessing, storing or using a deadly weapon while outside on university grounds, that is owned, operated or leased by the university.”

But Kaitlin Bennett, a recent Kent State graduate who earned national attention by sharing graduation photos of her holding a rifle on campus, said in a Facebook post on Friday she plans to openly carry her weapon at the rally.

“We are still showing up Sept. 29th and we will be open-carrying,” she said. “We did it in April. It’s our constitutional right. It’s legally allowed.”

The Beacon Journal reached out to KSU spokesman Eric Mansfield to ask what the consequences would be if anyone were to open carry at the rally. He declined to comment beyond the university’s written statement.

“The health and safety of our students, faculty, staff and visitors are our top priorities,” the university said in the statement. “Kent State upholds the right to free speech and freedom of expression for all, and values respectful dialogue from all points of view.”

Liberty Hangout must pay for security costs for the event, according to KSU . ($14,000)
The university previously issued a “cease and desist” order against Bennett in late August because the event was not registered at the time.

Bennett, one of the organizers of the rally, has said speakers will include Millie Weaver from InfoWars, Joe Gibson of Patriot Prayer and political activist Ryan Fournier.

The speakers requested won’t be permitted to use the university’s Kiva auditorium due to not reserving the space at least four weeks in advance, according to the university.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2018 10:03 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
You avoid like the plague saying you're actually interested in discussing regulation.

Funny you say that right after I try to open a discussion with you about regulations.

I have no problem with your ideas except your wanting to ban semiautomatic guns. But Baldimo has already talked to you about vilifying the gun instead of the user. Most of the anti-gun folks do the same.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 07:38 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
But Baldimo has already talked to you about vilifying the gun instead of the user. Most of the anti-gun folks do the same.
It's not vilifying the gun to name the type of mass murder:
- bombing
- suicide bombing
- plane hijacking into the twin towers
- mass shooting
- 'drove a car through a crowd'
- sent them to the gas chambers

All of these are mass murders, and all nominate the method of mass murder. This is common practice, and well accepted.

The issue seems to be, that you don't like gun being directly associated with killings using guns. Even pro-gun people should use it, if they want to be consistent in their use of mass murder descriptors in English (unless they never use the term bombings, or suicide bombings, or any of the others on the list, for mass murders. Eg. to be consistent, they would have to never say anything like 'there's been another bombing in <country name>')
-------------------------

If you meant vilifying semi-auto's. There's no vilification involved (as I said, I rather like them. Of all the guns I shot, I enjoyed them the best). Just a recognition that they have the capacity to cause a lot more damage in the hands of a lunatic.
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 09:23 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
- plane hijacking into the twin towers


When a body so willfully and openly lies, especially when that body knows he is lying willfully, he cannot be trusted on anything, ever, that he says again.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 09:25 am
@Glennn,
vikorr is a farmerman, an Olivier, a Setanta, a ..., Glennn. You can't trust a thing he says.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 10:36 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

The issue seems to be, that you don't like gun being directly associated with killings using guns.


Because that would mean that the NRA and their followers are complicit in the murder of hundreds of children every year. They are complicit, they're every bit as guilty as the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi death camps at the end of the street.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 10:37 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
All of these are mass murders, and all nominate the method of mass murder. This is common practice, and well accepted.

I have no problem with that. It's when people decide that the weapon used should be banned, as was the case with the AR-15, that I take exception to.
Quote:
Just a recognition that they have the capacity to cause a lot more damage in the hands of a lunatic.

Ii have no problem with that, either. It's when people decide that the weapon used by the lunatic should be banned that I take exception to.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 10:42 am
@izzythepush,
I'm not a member of the NRA; nor am I a follower of the organization. So you'll have to explain how it is that you came to the conclusion that I am no different from someone who had turned a blind eye to the Nazi death camps.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 10:54 am
@Glennn,
The fact remains that you feel your need to strut around with a gun feeling important takes priority over a child's right to life. You can rationalise it away as much as you like, but America's ultra high homicide rate is a result of its ridiculously lax gun laws. And those ridiculously lax gun laws are because of people like you. So yes, you're complicit.
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 11:01 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
They are complicit, they're every bit as guilty as the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi death camps at the end of the street.


The hypocrisy is everywhere. Ordinary Brits [Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine] are every bit as guilty as the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi death camps at the end of the street.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 11:03 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You can rationalise it away as much as you like, but America's ultra high homicide rate is a result of its ridiculously lax gun laws.


It's much much more than that but at present, it is the law.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2018 11:32 am
And corporate America's attendant lickspittle dutifully shuffles by to poison common sense gun control by associating it with his rabid anti Americanism and cretinous 9/11 conspiracy bollocks.

I can't be the only once who's noticed that A2K's biggest liar, coward and hypocrite spends 90% of his posts calling everyone else that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.59 seconds on 09/22/2018 at 06:25:02