|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2018 00:58 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2018 00:56 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 24 2018 00:45 micronesia wrote:
People discussing or advocating for guns come from all places on the spectrum from "ban all civilian gun ownership" to "no rules whatsoever about gun ownership." The commonly repeated claim that nobody is advocating for a complete ban on civilian gun ownership is false. I'll say that people from all parts of the spectrum are making false claims about what people in other parts of the spectrum are asking for. I'm not talking about other people, just him and what he is or isn't advocating for based on what I've read him say in these forum posts. You said something false, and it's still false regardless of who you were talking to.
I disagree with you.
Saying there is validity to the idea that "Americans want to ban all guns" is pandering to the fears of even the smallest portion of the minority of gun advocates.
Because one old judge came out and said we should abolish the second amendment to solve the problem, doesn't mean there is any legitimacy to the idea. No actual discussions or ideas put on the table for discussion include abolishing the second amendment... it's not a real consideration. Just because some people give voice to it doesn't make it anymore substantial than an idea in their head, but...
You better believe some people (talk show hosts, politicians, and trolls) take that statement and run with it as scientific truth (like some people in this thread)... It's great BS fodder to derail any real discussion. It leads to counter argument against an illusion.
At that point the discussion is pointless.
If you want me to say, "99.999999% of people aren't advocating for the banning of all guns," then fine... I amend my statement to "the vast majority." It doesn't change my point in the slightest.
You claim, "The commonly repeated claim that nobody is advocating for a complete ban on civilian gun ownership is false."
If thats true show me any example of legislation that brought to congress and made it to the floor for a vote which proposes this, ever.... in the history of our country...
If you do that, then I'll concede that you made a relevant point to the discussion and not just one where you wanted to point out that I was technically wrong in the language I used.
|
United States24800 Posts
If you do in fact change your position to 'the vast majority' are not calling for total gun bans then I will not object. I don't know what the actual percentage is but it is obviously way less than 50% who are calling for any type of a total gun ban.
This is more than mere semantics. If some folks respond very negatively to occasional calls for total gun bans, then don't beat those people up for responding to fictitious calls for total gun bans when the calls were not fictitious. You can accuse those folks of conflating people calling for total gun bans with people calling for more in-between solutions, when applicable. That's fine, and I've already done it too (and we've seen it on all sides of the issue).
|
On June 24 2018 04:53 micronesia wrote:
If you do in fact change your position to 'the vast majority' are not calling for total gun bans then I will not object. I don't know what the actual percentage is but it is obviously way less than 50% who are calling for any type of a total gun ban.
This is more than mere semantics. If some folks respond very negatively to occasional calls for total gun bans, then don't beat those people up for responding to fictitious calls for total gun bans when the calls were not fictitious. You can accuse those folks of conflating people calling for total gun bans with people calling for more in-between solutions, when applicable. That's fine, and I've already done it too (and we've seen it on all sides of the issue).
I change my point to the vast majority if it makes it more palatable, but ask yourself this question. What did making that point contribute to the conversation?
If 100 people are calling for reasonable gun reform or any gun reform, but 3-5 people are calling for a total gun ban then I would call that completely irrelevant or fictitious. That would be reflective of a somewhere in the 90% majority. Those peoples' fears are real, but only in their own mind, not in any legislative sense.
Not only is it not a real consideration in any meaningful conversation on the subject, but it completely detracts from the actual discussion, as it has here (which is the more detrimental aspect of it).
We have to spend time debunking an irrelevant statement who's only legitimacy is that a few people spoke it. Meanwhile, the real issue is forgotten amongst some technical and irrelevant point.
This is a political technique very often employed by American conservatives and the current administration (not to mention the NRA).
|
United States24800 Posts
ShambhalaWar, don't forget that this conversation we are having here started when you quoted someone, said all I've heard you say is, "don't take all our guns," and added nobody is saying that. The post you quoted did not include "don't take our guns." It was an understandable response to ridiculous hyperbole about how folks with conservative gun values think the solution is more guns, even to problems like the refrigerator not working. The person originally quoted was doing exactly what you are accusing conservatives of right now and stifling discussion. You can't reasonably try to moral high ground here about pointless technical tangents given that lead-up to this discussion. And yes, notable people, and people in this thread even, have called for total gun bans, in the past, so it's not some hypothetical.
When you see cases where people are pretending someone argued for a total gun ban, when they did not, call that out if you want to, and actually quote that post, and make your point about how a political technique commonly used by American conservatives is being used to prevent real discussion. Don't call out posts that aren't actually like that then argue to the death when people point out you aren't being reasonable.
|
There was danglars , and superstranstart going all about "taking away all our guns" who were both formerly very active in the thread. Amongst another guy I cannot remember the name of right now. Both their postions was that any gun conttrol laws are terrible because it would take away all their guns eventually.
|
On June 27 2018 19:55 micronesia wrote:
ShambhalaWar, don't forget that this conversation we are having here started when you quoted someone, said all I've heard you say is, "don't take all our guns," and added nobody is saying that. The post you quoted did not include "don't take our guns." It was an understandable response to ridiculous hyperbole about how folks with conservative gun values think the solution is more guns, even to problems like the refrigerator not working. The person originally quoted was doing exactly what you are accusing conservatives of right now and stifling discussion. You can't reasonably try to moral high ground here about pointless technical tangents given that lead-up to this discussion. And yes, notable people, and people in this thread even, have called for total gun bans, in the past, so it's not some hypothetical.
When you see cases where people are pretending someone argued for a total gun ban, when they did not, call that out if you want to, and actually quote that post, and make your point about how a political technique commonly used by American conservatives is being used to prevent real discussion. Don't call out posts that aren't actually like that then argue to the death when people point out you aren't being reasonable.
I could care less about moral high ground, and a discussion doesn't include points that aren't based in the shared reality. Nobody in leadership positions are calling for a ban on all guns, therefore the position is irrelevant.
However, the person occupying the white house suggested arming teachers with guns as a legitimate answer to the MSD high school massacre.
Hyperbole is appropriate when the solutions proposed for a mass murder are that fucking stupid.
In a thread about school shootings it's pointless to rail on and on about someone taking away the gun rights of all Americans. It's not even part of the discussion, to say it is... is flatly untrue. It's only a real discussion in the mind of alex jones and people that dilute their minds with his false reality. It's the equivalent of coming in here and saying "sandy hook was faked, just like the moon landing."
You're only legitimate point is that someone at some point in time said, "we should ban all guns." That, does not in any way make it a legitimate part of this discussion. It's just something conservatives say when their point is otherwise indefensible in light of the killing that results from America's gun problem.
|
United States24800 Posts
On June 28 2018 11:19 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 19:55 micronesia wrote:
ShambhalaWar, don't forget that this conversation we are having here started when you quoted someone, said all I've heard you say is, "don't take all our guns," and added nobody is saying that. The post you quoted did not include "don't take our guns." It was an understandable response to ridiculous hyperbole about how folks with conservative gun values think the solution is more guns, even to problems like the refrigerator not working. The person originally quoted was doing exactly what you are accusing conservatives of right now and stifling discussion. You can't reasonably try to moral high ground here about pointless technical tangents given that lead-up to this discussion. And yes, notable people, and people in this thread even, have called for total gun bans, in the past, so it's not some hypothetical.
When you see cases where people are pretending someone argued for a total gun ban, when they did not, call that out if you want to, and actually quote that post, and make your point about how a political technique commonly used by American conservatives is being used to prevent real discussion. Don't call out posts that aren't actually like that then argue to the death when people point out you aren't being reasonable. I could care less about moral high ground, Although it doesn't seem that way, if true then that's commendable.
and a discussion doesn't include points that aren't based in the shared reality. Nobody in leadership positions are calling for a ban on all guns, therefore the position is irrelevant. You moved the goal posts. The question was whether or not people were calling for a total gun ban... not whether or not people in leadership positions are calling for a total gun ban. You can make the point that it's more important to talk about what the leaders are saying, but that doesn't make what you originally said correct.
However, the person occupying the white house suggested arming teachers with guns as a legitimate answer to the MSD high school massacre. Which is relevant to our discussion because...?
Hyperbole is appropriate when the solutions proposed for a mass murder are that fucking stupid. This only serves as evidence that you, presumably a representative of the left on this issue, are not willing to have a reasonable discussion on this topic and support others who say stupid things to drive away people who don't agree with you on the issue. At least own up to it.
In a thread about school shootings Which this thread is not, specifically. it's pointless to rail on and on about someone taking away the gun rights of all Americans. You can easily make the argument my original objection is pointless despite being technically correct. I would have bowed out a while ago if you did. It's not even part of the discussion, to say it is... is flatly untrue. As previously demonstrated, my original objection was based on truth rather than falsehood. Importance you can argue, not accuracy. It's only a real discussion in the mind of alex jones and people that dilute their minds with his false reality. It's the equivalent of coming in here and saying "sandy hook was faked, just like the moon landing." I don't appreciate being told my objection to your falsehoods puts me in the same category as Alex Jones who is nuts or obvious conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook or the moon landing. You are doubling down on use of hyperbola to drive away the person that disagrees with you. As I said, just own up to it. You don't give a crap what people who don't totally agree with you think, and just want to pontificate your thoughts into this thread.
You're only legitimate point is that someone at some point in time said, "we should ban all guns." That, does not in any way make it a legitimate part of this discussion. It's just something conservatives say when their point is otherwise indefensible in light of the killing that results from America's gun problem.
I never said the call for banning all guns came exclusively from people who are on the right on this issue, nor did I need to.
What you need to do, and I am almost 100% sure you won't, is take a step back and think about what you are actually trying to accomplish here. Based on your actions, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are trying to drive me, someone who wants to see various gun-related reforms that will place common sense restrictions on gun usage, further to the right. Perhaps the conservatives in this thread will that much further emboldened to completely write you off as well... but it's pretty clear you don't give a crap about that either.
|
Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:28 micronesia wrote:On June 28 2018 11:19 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 27 2018 19:55 micronesia wrote:
ShambhalaWar, don't forget that this conversation we are having here started when you quoted someone, said all I've heard you say is, "don't take all our guns," and added nobody is saying that. The post you quoted did not include "don't take our guns." It was an understandable response to ridiculous hyperbole about how folks with conservative gun values think the solution is more guns, even to problems like the refrigerator not working. The person originally quoted was doing exactly what you are accusing conservatives of right now and stifling discussion. You can't reasonably try to moral high ground here about pointless technical tangents given that lead-up to this discussion. And yes, notable people, and people in this thread even, have called for total gun bans, in the past, so it's not some hypothetical.
When you see cases where people are pretending someone argued for a total gun ban, when they did not, call that out if you want to, and actually quote that post, and make your point about how a political technique commonly used by American conservatives is being used to prevent real discussion. Don't call out posts that aren't actually like that then argue to the death when people point out you aren't being reasonable. I could care less about moral high ground, Although it doesn't seem that way, if true then that's commendable. and a discussion doesn't include points that aren't based in the shared reality. Nobody in leadership positions are calling for a ban on all guns, therefore the position is irrelevant. You moved the goal posts. The question was whether or not people were calling for a total gun ban... not whether or not people in leadership positions are calling for a total gun ban. You can make the point that it's more important to talk about what the leaders are saying, but that doesn't make what you originally said correct. However, the person occupying the white house suggested arming teachers with guns as a legitimate answer to the MSD high school massacre. Which is relevant to our discussion because...? Hyperbole is appropriate when the solutions proposed for a mass murder are that fucking stupid. This only serves as evidence that you, presumably a representative of the left on this issue, are not willing to have a reasonable discussion on this topic and support others who say stupid things to drive away people who don't agree with you on the issue. At least own up to it. In a thread about school shootings Which this thread is not, specifically. it's pointless to rail on and on about someone taking away the gun rights of all Americans. You can easily make the argument my original objection is pointless despite being technically correct. I would have bowed out a while ago if you did. It's not even part of the discussion, to say it is... is flatly untrue. As previously demonstrated, my original objection was based on truth rather than falsehood. Importance you can argue, not accuracy. It's only a real discussion in the mind of alex jones and people that dilute their minds with his false reality. It's the equivalent of coming in here and saying "sandy hook was faked, just like the moon landing." I don't appreciate being told my objection to your falsehoods puts me in the same category as Alex Jones who is nuts or obvious conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook or the moon landing. You are doubling down on use of hyperbola to drive away the person that disagrees with you. As I said, just own up to it. You don't give a crap what people who don't totally agree with you think, and just want to pontificate your thoughts into this thread. You're only legitimate point is that someone at some point in time said, "we should ban all guns." That, does not in any way make it a legitimate part of this discussion"
"It's just something conservatives say when their point is otherwise indefensible in light of the killing that results from America's gun problem. I never said the call for banning all guns came exclusively from people who are on the right on this issue, nor did I need to. What you need to do, and I am almost 100% sure you won't, is take a step back and think about what you are actually trying to accomplish here. Based on your actions, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are trying to drive me, someone who wants to see various gun-related reforms that will place common sense restrictions on gun usage, further to the right. Perhaps the conservatives in this thread will that much further emboldened to completely write you off as well... but it's pretty clear you don't give a crap about that either.
"it's pointless to rail on and on about someone taking away the gun rights of all Americans"
"You can easily make the argument my original objection is pointless despite being technically correct. I would have bowed out a while ago if you did."
I'm sorry I couldn't word it so well... That's been my point this whole time.
Maybe you could just spell it out in 1 or 2 sentences, what has been your point of making a comment on my post?
You wanted to say I was technically wrong about a statement that is 99% right?
Also, I can't drive you any farther to the right than I can make someone like danglers view of the world less myopic. We can discuss something, but this isn't really a discussion, it's only about being "right." Same with danglers, he just has a view point he is clinging too and will probably never let go of because it serves his world view.
If you want to have a discussion with me you need to bring more than just poking technical holes in my words, communication isn't so 1 dimensional as reading exactly what is written and calling it's god's truth. The bible for example. While I thought I had clearly conceded your technical point a couple posts ago, clearly it wasn't receive. I changed my view to the vast majority already... yet... if you are getting hung up on that you are also missing the large amounts of truth in my technically false statement.
I'm angry... that I live in a country where young children can get mass murdered and we do NOTHING about it.... NOTHING. 60 dead and 250 people wounded in vegas, lives changed forever... people can't walk again... facial disfigurations... workers that get shot in the arm and maybe it fucks up their career for life (if you don't die your not news worthy) for going to a fucking country concert and we can't even ban bump stocks...
You should be livid, disgusted by what's going on... if you're not, then your not paying attention.
|
So let me try a different approach...
How do you feel about all the gun violence in America that doesn't get addressed?
What would you like to see done (if anything)?
|
On June 29 2018 00:59 ShambhalaWar wrote:
So let me try a different approach...
How do you feel about all the gun violence in America that doesn't get addressed?
What would you like to see done (if anything)?
Well the Gang violence is a tough issue that most people believe is more of a socio economic and community by community issue. Handguns are small simple weapons that are easy to hide and early 20th century models are still the most popular kinds.
|
Got some new material
reports are at least 4 dead
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Any information on who the shooter is? Motive? etc...
|
On June 29 2018 04:47 BigFan wrote:
Any information on who the shooter is? Motive? etc...
Nothing yet but police have a suspect in custody.
Based off of what we have it points to either workplace issues and/or angry suicidal white man who failed to get police to kill him.
|
|
|
Can't access the coverage from Europe :/
Unsettling timing with Milo's statement about journalists, but the thesis of suicidal/workplace issue is always more likely.
|
White guy with a shotgun is the latest update from the conference. 0 fatalities reported by police so far.
EDIT: at least 5 dead
EDIT 2: Police now saying 5 dead is incorrect. No idea if it's higher or lower. The police had previously said 5.
|
On June 29 2018 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't access the coverage from Europe :/
Unsettling timing with Milo's statement about journalists, but the thesis of suicidal/workplace issue is always more likely.
Milo just posted something saying the media will blame it on him because they don't understand what trolling is. The dude is a walking abuse of oxygen.
|
On June 29 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't access the coverage from Europe :/
Unsettling timing with Milo's statement about journalists, but the thesis of suicidal/workplace issue is always more likely. Milo just posted something saying the media will blame it on him because they don't understand what trolling is. The dude is a walking abuse of oxygen.
I don't think either you or Milo are wrong about this.
|
On June 29 2018 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't access the coverage from Europe :/
Unsettling timing with Milo's statement about journalists, but the thesis of suicidal/workplace issue is always more likely. Milo just posted something saying the media will blame it on him because they don't understand what trolling is. The dude is a walking abuse of oxygen. I don't think either you or Milo are wrong about this.
He is likely right. But the response consisted entirely of him covering his ass, just in case. Nothing about the victims of the shooting. The dude is shit stain and a blight on mankind.
|
On June 29 2018 06:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2018 06:27 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2018 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:
Can't access the coverage from Europe :/
Unsettling timing with Milo's statement about journalists, but the thesis of suicidal/workplace issue is always more likely. Milo just posted something saying the media will blame it on him because they don't understand what trolling is. The dude is a walking abuse of oxygen. I don't think either you or Milo are wrong about this. He is likely right. But the response consisted entirely of him covering his ass, just in case. Nothing about the victims of the shooting. The dude is shit stain and a blight on mankind.
He's a troll, and a boring one at this point. Frankly he's pretty pathetic and I feel more pity for him and anyone who listens to him than rage or fear.
They all need help and I know they don't think so or want it, but empathy is a bitch and I can't turn it off. I'm much more enraged and threatened by the people with the intelligence and power to know better and consciously choose to be despicable for money and power beyond any reasonable measure.
Milo's like comparing a street gang leader to Kissinger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
