Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 5 of 20<<<34567>>>
03-05-2020 12:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.

By virtue of it being a concession, they were making the statement that automatic weapons should be legal, but that they will not fight for that line item.

... but you knew that.


.
Attached image:

03-05-2020 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.

By virtue of it being a concession, they were making the statement that automatic weapons should be legal, but that they will not fight for that line item.

... but you knew that.


.


Automatic weapons are also legal. You can even go down to some shooting ranges and rent one (and all the ammunition you'll need for it!).

They'll even throw in an instructor for you, since most people have no idea how to shoot one of these things safely.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-05-2020 01:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.

By virtue of it being a concession, they were making the statement that automatic weapons should be legal, but that they will not fight for that line item.
... but you knew that.
Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?
04-05-2020 02:05
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.

By virtue of it being a concession, they were making the statement that automatic weapons should be legal, but that they will not fight for that line item.
... but you knew that.
Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?



The NRA was originally an organization that taught Americans how to fire a rifle. Why be involved in World War I if Americans can't hit a target? Load a rifle or even clean one? The original purpose of the NRA was to educate Americans so they could be drafted.
During the War In Iraq, National Guard troops were slaughtered on mass because their training was a joke. To understand what the NRA's original purpose was, can you point and shoot and kill the other guy?
And if you're a hunter, using a bow and arrow is more sporting. The NRA no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended and why it was founded. Am surprised that Americans do not know why the NRA was founded.
With the Boy Scouts of America, some guy from eastern Kentucky wanted to teach kids in Louisville, Kentucky mountaineering skills. He used to live in eastern Kentucky and had an affinity for the woods. And when he ended up in Louisville, he decided to share his passion for the outdoors.
With the NRA, are you ready to serve your country during times of war?
I'm trying to figure out how to teach "REAL AMERICANS" about their history. I'm simply clueless on this.

p.s., to get a clue on this, watch this movie, it is based on a true story and the guy was probably America's biggest War Hero during WW I although in subsequent interviews, he might not have been a conscientious objector to killing people. A requirement of serving int he military. You are required to say you can kill someone if the need arises. If not, then the military would be church and we'd all be praying together, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpqfliC4TMc

p.s., he drank in Kentucky because he couldn't in Tennessee.
Hey, I drink in Kentucky and am taking on you a$$holes

And yes, watch the movie. As it turns out, most of it is true. The Hero got the woman

Edited on 04-05-2020 02:13
04-05-2020 06:13
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Seriously guys, it's one of the funniest scenes in the movie. The bar he drank in had the state lines drawn on the floor. The Tennessee side of the bar was dry cause Tennessee makes Jack Daniels.
He also liked 4 things. His gal, his horse, shooting a rifle and drinking. Not necessarily in that order.
Let's just say that I am pursuing a resolution to my current situation.

Edited on 04-05-2020 06:30
04-05-2020 06:58
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
The reason Kentuckians keep reelecting Senator McConnell isn't because his family is getting richer with him in office. It's because he's fighting for coal jobs.
In addition to roughly 1,000 gigawatts of existing coal capacity, China has 121 gigawatts of coal plants under construction, which is more than is being built in the rest of the world combined.
https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/

And Mitch is getting richer because of his wife's family. Fortunately China is subsidizing their shipping company so there is no conflict of interest. It just shows that the US and our Senate Majority Leader is dependent on China. It is a global economy and one in which without China, the US would suffer as some say. Fortunately though, Senator McConnell is helping to creating jobs for miners as he has always pledged to do. Why "Real Americans" should continue supporting him.
America can only do better if China becomes the world's #1 economy and world leader.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mitch-mcconnell-net-worth/
04-05-2020 07:04
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Something to consider. The US and China are the world's 2 largest economies. The US is proud of it's part in this relationship. It promotes capitalism. China is a communist country.
Does something seem off in that statement? Communism is about promoting capitalism?
It isn't but as long as China provides low cost goods, Democracy is for sale.

And Harvey, for you, I almost died because common sense was thrown out the window. I have my own life to live and yet others had their idea of what I should be doing. Just as in this forum. If we ignore science, we can say Stefan-Boltzmann constant when it doesn't apply but then some people have religious beliefs.
Edited on 04-05-2020 07:11
04-05-2020 18:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[covid-19 regulations and seat belt laws]
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything...

So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?
I'm asking for your perspective not characterizing it.

1 - Here in Wisconsin, this policy does not stop nor prevent much of anything. Getting pulled over for not wearing a seat belt will only result in a $10 ticket (and no points on your driver's license either). This policy has an infinitesimal, if any, effect on the behavior of a Wisconsinite. Plenty of Wisconsinites (including numerous family members of mine) do not wear their seat belts. My dad has been pulled over a couple of times for not wearing his seat belt. He simply paid the $10 fine both times. He still does not wear his seat belt. My cousin never wears one either. He has yet to be pulled over for it. My uncle never wears one either. Idk whether or not he's been pulled over for it. Personally, I choose to use seat belts.

2 - Here in Wisconsin, this policy has an effect on people's behavior, since the fine for the first offense (depending on BAC and other factors) is hundreds of dollars, plus hundreds of dollars as a surcharge, plus a 6-9 month suspension of your driver's license (which will now have 6 points on it for 5 years, and the DUI stays on your record for 10 years). None of my family members drive under the influence, and neither do I, as I pretty much don't drink alcohol anymore (once in a great while I'll have A drink).

3 - Here in Wisconsin, this policy has an effect on people's behavior, since the fine for the first offense (depending on how fast one was going and other factors) is a couple hundred dollars (give or take) plus some points on your driver's license for a few years. I'm not aware of my family members' speeding tickets, but I've gotten one speeding ticket about four years ago or so. I wasn't in a good state of mind that day (back when I had plenty of anxiety and depression issues and etc...), and was going 15mph over the speed limit (70 in a 55). I got a $180ish fine and a few points on my license, which boosted my insurance rates for a few years. Since that very moment, I realized that I needed to do something about my general "state of mind". That's been a rather slow process, but plenty of my own attempts over the subsequent years DID see some improvement (but they were only temporary).

Then, sparked from another moment (this time a rift in the family between one of my uncles and my grandma), I decided to do a "new years resolution" for 2020. The resolution was to start breaking out my Bible again at home (I am currently doing a reading plan that will get me through the OT once and the NT and Psalms twice over the course of this year).

I then started thinking about my relationship with God and the general way that I conduct my life. I realized (after a while of diving into God's Word again) that I've been more or less a "Christian In Name Only", going to church and all of that, but not really having The Word within me, and not really conducting my life in a Christ-like manner. Over these last four months, my habitual sins have come to light in a way which they never have before, and now I'm currently working on getting them out of my life.

So yes, that speeding ticket (and then the rift in the family) has now blossomed into having a huge impact on my overall behavior.
05-05-2020 04:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?

Yes. Their line directly aligns with the 2nd Amendment. For example they draw the line on any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And when I say that they "draw the line" I mean they draw the line.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-05-2020 07:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?

Yes. Their line directly aligns with the 2nd Amendment. For example they draw the line on any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And when I say that they "draw the line" I mean they draw the line.


On a related note I just watched Bad Education based on a true story about a HS administrator that embezzled millions of dollars. The guy went to jail and in the epilogue it was reveiled he still collects a $175,000 pension from NY State. A "loophole" they called it. So I looked it up and to this day, due to pressure from the unions in NY Democratic law makers have blocked efforts to correct this.

So that tells me this interest group in NY are unfit to be making public policy but have managed to. Because that is crazy.

I'm no expert on the NRA but assumed they did not even admit they would like hand grenades, RPGs or other weapons of war to be legal. Or else they would suffer the same condemnation of being regarded as nuts by the swing voters in the middle of our countries electorate.

But I'm curious do any of you personally think any and all weapons should be legally available to anyone? That means ANY: hand grenade, bazooka, land mine, machine gun, missiles, ect.
Edited on 05-05-2020 07:40
05-05-2020 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote: I'm no expert on the NRA but assumed they did not even admit they would like hand grenades, RPGs or other weapons of war to be legal.

If you aren't an expert on the NRA, how do you know they want those legal and why are you assuming to what they would and would not admit?

tmiddles wrote: Or else they would suffer the same condemnation of being regarded as nuts by the swing voters in the middle of our countries electorate.

Why do you presume to speak for swing voters. Obviously they would applaud having SOMEONE that sticks up for their Constitutional rights. The ACLU no longer does. That leaves only the NRA as the champion of We the People.

tmiddles wrote: But I'm curious do any of you personally think any and all weapons should be legally available to anyone?

That is a complex question, however, if the government can have it then We the People should be similarly able to have it. If We the People are prohibited from having it then the government that serves us should similarly be prohibited. The part of the question you are avoiding/omitting is whether hazardous materials should be regulated for the protection of the people, under which the government should have to abide by the same requirements. That answer is "yes" and should be the basis for this conversation.

tmiddles wrote: That means ANY: hand grenade, bazooka, land mine, machine gun, missiles, ect.

I'm not going to answer this text here because you will use it without my preceding paragraph as explanation. Ergo, the preceding paragraph will constitute my answer.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-05-2020 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?
The NRA never made any such statement.

in 1986, ... National Rifle Association. The organization made one concession, ... a federal ban on machine guns.

By virtue of it being a concession, they were making the statement that automatic weapons should be legal, but that they will not fight for that line item.
... but you knew that.
Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?


RQAA. Why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over...??


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-05-2020 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Actually I don't study the NRA much. Do they draw the line anywhere?

Yes. Their line directly aligns with the 2nd Amendment. For example they draw the line on any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And when I say that they "draw the line" I mean they draw the line.


On a related note I just watched Bad Education based on a true story about a HS administrator that embezzled millions of dollars. The guy went to jail and in the epilogue it was reveiled he still collects a $175,000 pension from NY State. A "loophole" they called it. So I looked it up and to this day, due to pressure from the unions in NY Democratic law makers have blocked efforts to correct this.

So that tells me this interest group in NY are unfit to be making public policy but have managed to. Because that is crazy.

I'm no expert on the NRA but assumed they did not even admit they would like hand grenades, RPGs or other weapons of war to be legal. Or else they would suffer the same condemnation of being regarded as nuts by the swing voters in the middle of our countries electorate.

But I'm curious do any of you personally think any and all weapons should be legally available to anyone? That means ANY: hand grenade, bazooka, land mine, machine gun, missiles, ect.

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2020 02:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...If We the People are prohibited from having it then the government that serves us should similarly be prohibited....
OK so we overthrew our government in the revolutionary war. Our ability to do that depended on our ability to arm ourselves. The right to bear arms and the right to an organized militia seem to be based on that.

You, the NRA, and everyone I've heard pushing gun rights seems to skip over this armored elephant in the room.

Do you believe private citizens should be armed adequately to defeat their own government in combat? Question for any and all who seem to think this 2nd amendment thing is super important (I don't)
Edited on 06-05-2020 02:44
06-05-2020 05:10
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
I think the government would have to make some radical, oppressive changes, permanent, like Covid-19 restrictions, to get an armed rebellion started. Don't see it happening, they start firing on American citizens, they will lose kind of quick.

I do believe that Americans should be armed, whether they chose to use them or not. It's a good deterrent to crime. Pocket change isn't worth getting shot over. Nobody is faster than a speeding bullet... It'll never be practical, for every house and business to have their own cop assigned to protect them. Most every public school has a resource officer, but still doesn't stop crime, or mass shootings. Calling 911, is a minimal of 10 minutes (if a cop, happens to be nearby), or 20-30 minutes, average. Depends on where you live, but it's about one cop, per 2,000 citizens. Arming citizens, still makes good sense, just as it did, when the 2nd Amendment was written. I'm all for open carry, sidearms, holstered. It's a constant reminder that justice can be very swift, and can come from multiple sources. Guns are simply tools, long as they are safely holstered, nothing to fear. A gun in hand, means intent to use it. Best have a damn good reason to put your hand on it, in public.
06-05-2020 06:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
HarveyH55 wrote:
...doesn't stop crime, or mass shootings....
what does stop mass shootings is a country where guns are illegal.

Wacko shootings by the derranged depend on guns being available.

Without a gun show there is no Columbine

https://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm

Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

You know what they were not able to use on the High School? A gun which wasn't legal in the U.S.
06-05-2020 08:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
...doesn't stop crime, or mass shootings....
what does stop mass shootings is a country where guns are illegal.

Did you read that in Wikipedia? Did UK firearm prohibitions stop the Cumbria Shootings ?

Logically, how does rendering the law-abiding population completely defenseless prevent them from being shot by a determined violent criminal?

You aren't willing to think this through, are you? Your solidarity with Marxists worldwide kind of precludes that.

tmiddles wrote: Wacko shootings by the derranged depend on guns being available.

Nope. Gun control only works where criminals obey the law and don't acquire firearms. This is why gun control doesn't work.

Actually the opposite is true, gun control creates mass shootings by creating defenselessness zones whereby violent criminals don't have to bother with inconveniently armed law-abiding citizens that will drop them before they can get their sight picture. Have you noticed that all mass shooting occur where firearms are prohibited? Have you ever noticed that there are never any mass shootings at NRA firing ranges where everyone has a gun?

So let's unpack your argument.

NRA firing ranges: high gun availability. Zero mass killings.
Public Schools: firearms absolutely prohibited. Mass killing magnets.

tmiddles wrote: Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers.

Big F'ing deal. That's how it works in a country that values liberty. Go on ...

tmiddles wrote:You know what they were not able to use on the High School? A gun which wasn't legal in the U.S.

So the problem was ensuring that everyone on the school grounds was utterly defenseless ... and then making that fact public knowledge.

The creation of a defenselessness zone creates target rich environments for violent criminals ... which makes them very popular among violent criminals. Imagine, large groups of totally unarmed people ... that can't fight back.

Did I mention that there are zero mass killings at NRA shooting ranges? With all of those guns ... so many guns ... guns galore ... you'd think that there's be occasional mass shootings, right? But there are ZERO. How's that?

Didn't you say that gun availability = mass killing? Hmmmm, let me think about that one ...

Nope. It's the defenselessness of the population that causes the mass killings. Any government that is filled with glee at rendering its people totally defenseless certainly doesn't give a chit about their welfare. Venezuela comes to mind. In fact, we learned from our founding fathers that it is a signal of an impending tyrannical government. All Marxist governments that have ever existed come to mind.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-05-2020 10:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
...doesn't stop crime, or mass shootings....
what does stop mass shootings is a country where guns are illegal.

Did you read that in Wikipedia? Did UK firearm prohibitions stop the Cumbria Shootings ?
Follow along here IBD. I said that guns used by crackpots are always legal. That is the case with Derrick Bird in the incident you've linked to. See the critique here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/02/police-no-grounds-derrick-bird-guns-ban

Mostly illegal (which you could describe the UK vs the US) means it's a lot harder for those things to happen. Now I specifically mean crazy person shootings like columbine and the 230 school shootings since then:
https://www.necn.com/news/national-international/school-shootings-since-columbine/1908046/

Now had you given me an example of a crackpot like Bird who scored illegal guns on the black market I would stand corrected.

Of course that's not addressing criminal violence just the "crazy person" shootings and certainly gun violence where children pull the trigger.

IBdaMann wrote:Gun control only works where criminals obey the law and don't acquire firearms. This is why gun control doesn't work.

This isn't hogwarts man you can just say something, wand in hand, and make it true. Give one single example of non-criminal gun violence: as in the Bird incident, Columbine, school shootings, Florida night club, Las Vegas, and so one, where the guns used were illegal? And you have the whole world to draw from there. Take the 2011 Norway attacks by wacko Breivik, legal guns.

Now I think it's safe to say that nearly 100% of these wackos would have loved more powerful weapons. The columbine guys even tried to make their own bombs with little success. Why? Because they could not buy reliable MADE IN USA bombs. Because bombs are illegal.

IBdaMann wrote:Actually the opposite is true, gun control creates mass shootings by creating defenselessness zones...
Possible but only in the context of a gun toting country with "zones" like schools. Not relevant to a country wide policy.

No that said this discussion only applies to wacko shootings. Criminal violence is an entirely different animal. The Canadian drug cartels haven't existed in ever, which are resulted in few shootings related to drugs in Canada which is dripping in guns. Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and horrific gun violence as we all know.

Do I think having regular Mexicans all walking the street armed would help reduce the cartel violence? No I do not.

But I do think that in Mexico, which has 42% more murders committed with a gun than the US, and 8x Canada, link that if a student wants to do a school shooting it's going to be a lot harder (I looked it up and it's happened but it's rare compared to the US). Of course that's simply applying No Duh logic to the situation.
Edited on 06-05-2020 10:09
06-05-2020 11:15
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
Nice try, violence, is still violence, and UK still has murder, and attempted murders, they just use knives and clubs. The might not have the mass shootings, but the have a huge problem with other violent crimes. The same nuts, will use whatever is handy, and they don't expect to survive. The Boston Bomber Brothers killed and injured a lot of people, without guns. Didn't buy ready-made bombs, built them all their own. Mass shootings aren't as common as home invasion crimes. Fortunately, armed homeowners often are successful in defending themselves, because the police are coming, until after. You can narrow-focus on one type of crime, to play a silly debate game, but the reality is that people have to defend themselves, if they want to survive. You can't hide safely in your home forever. You can depend on other people, to do your job for you. If you want to live, you've got to do your own work most of the time, and have the tools to do the job effectively. You don't need a gun to kill a lot of people either. Remember when product tampering use to be popular? Anthrax mail? How many cars run through crowds? Arson? Poison gas? It's not guns, that make people kill, it's the people point them, and pulling the trigger.

Where does it stop? Take away all the guns, and the crimes and killings continue. Ban knives and sporting equipment? Pest control products? Household cleaning chemicals? Fertilizer?
06-05-2020 11:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...If We the People are prohibited from having it then the government that serves us should similarly be prohibited....
OK so we overthrew our government in the revolutionary war. Our ability to do that depended on our ability to arm ourselves. The right to bear arms and the right to an organized militia seem to be based on that.

Nope. The right to self defense is inherent.
tmiddles wrote:
You, the NRA, and everyone I've heard pushing gun rights seems to skip over this armored elephant in the room.

No elephant. You are hallucinating again.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe private citizens should be armed adequately to defeat their own government in combat?

Yes. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Question for any and all who seem to think this 2nd amendment thing is super important (I don't)

Lie.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2020 11:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
...doesn't stop crime, or mass shootings....
what does stop mass shootings is a country where guns are illegal.

Nope. Mass shootings occur every, in every nation.
tmiddles wrote:
Wacko shootings by the derranged depend on guns being available.

By definition. What you keep overlooking, however, are the 328 million people out there that DIDN'T shoot up a school, and never have. You also keep overlooking the low murder rate in the U.S.
tmiddles wrote:
Without a gun show there is no Columbine ...deleted Holy Link...

Without a 'gun free zone' there would be less chance of a Columbine. There are no guarantees, dumbass, no matter what you try to ban. You are not the dictator. You can't ban guns.
tmiddles wrote:
Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.

There is no such thing as an 'assault pistol'. Not that gun laws and 'gun free zones' did not prevent this crime.
tmiddles wrote:
You know what they were not able to use on the High School? A gun which wasn't legal in the U.S.

All guns are legal in the U.S.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-05-2020 12:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nice try, violence, is still violence, and UK still has murder, and attempted murders, they just use knives and clubs. The might not have the mass shootings, but the have a huge problem with other violent crimes.
So like they've had mass clubbing and mass stabbings at schools in the UK then right? I mean if I follow your logic.

I believe the NRA loves:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

which always comes up short in not finishing the thought. The rest of that should read "...even without guns people would want to kill people, sometimes they would manage to, but not so much since guns really work good for killing people. That's why guns are so great. Join the NRA and love guns with us."

HarveyH55 wrote:Where does it stop? Take away all the guns, and the crimes and killings continue. Ban knives and sporting equipment? ...
Isn't it fair to carry your thought there in both directions? On the one hand here is the question should we ban knives. Not getting past a bouncer with one (strange isn't it? wouldn't they want bars and clubs to be safer and pack them with as many weapons as possible?). On the other hand do you, Harvery, think weapons that are currently illegal should be put in the hands of regular citizens that want them? Fully automatic machine guns for example.

You said: should we ban knives? I say yes you shouldn't be carrying a knife as a weapon. Carrying a knife for self defense should be illegal.

My question to you is should we legalize fully automatic weapons and sell them at Walmart?

Into the Night wrote:
You also keep overlooking the low murder rate in the U.S.
I think it's fair to say that GDP per capita would be a good apples to apples basis for comparison wouldn't you? So let's look at countries similar to the US:
GDP per capita
Followed by the murder rate:Murders per 100,000
Country::GDP per capita::Murders per 100,000
United States :: 60,055 :: 5.35
Germany :: 47,603 :: 1.18
Australia :: 57,613 :: 0.94
Denmark :: 57,533 :: 0.98
Ireland :: 69,604 :: 0.80
Canada :: 46,233 :: 1.68
Japan :: 40,846 :: 0.28
Mexico :: 10,118 :: 19.26

So Mexico has nearly 4 times the murder rate we do but also 1/6th the gdp, just not a comparable country. Of comparable countries our murder rate is 5 to 6 times higher. So ITN what do you mean? Seems like the US has an extremely high homicide rate for our economic level.
Edited on 06-05-2020 12:57
06-05-2020 17:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:Follow along here IBD.

You are the one that really needs to pay attention.

tmiddles wrote: Mostly illegal (which you could describe the UK vs the US) means it's a lot harder for those things to happen.

I just explained to you why rendering the citizenry defenseless makes it more likely to happen. Try to follow along. All mass shootings are in defenselessness zones. Stay focused. There are no mass shootings at NRA shooting ranges.

Defenselessness is the determining factor.

tmiddles wrote: Now I specifically mean crazy person shootings ...

Nope. You are dead set on rendering ALL of the law abiding citizenry defenseless. You are dead set on creating more and more defenselessness zones. You seem to enjoy mass shootings and want to ensure there are an endless supply of them for years to come.

tmiddles wrote: This isn't hogwarts man you can just say something, wand in hand, and make it true.

EXACTLY! You can't just wave your magic wand and have the police magically teleport to the scene of a violent crime. Violent criminals CHOOSE the moment they act and they CHOOSE moments when there is no risk of a rapid response by law enforcement.

tmiddles wrote: Give one single example of non-criminal gun violence:

Law enforcement having to shoot someone.

tmiddles wrote: Possible but only in the context of a gun toting country with "zones" like schools. Not relevant to a country wide policy.

I just finished debunking that silly notion ... or are you living in denial of the Cambria shootings?

tmiddles wrote: No that said this discussion only applies to wacko shootings.

I think it applies to all shootings of defenseless victims.

Oh, guess what ... almost 100% of shooting victims are defenseless when they are shot. Imagine that.

tmiddles wrote: Criminal violence is an entirely different animal.

I think it's hilarious that you are trying to declassify "wacko" shootings as non-criminal.


tmiddles wrote:Do I think having regular Mexicans all walking the street armed would help reduce the cartel violence? No I do not.

Because in your logic, being able to defend yourself won't help you defend yourself. You make a lot of sense.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-05-2020 23:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Wow, tmiddles....................................

You've really out-tmiddled yourself now......
07-05-2020 00:13
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nice try, violence, is still violence, and UK still has murder, and attempted murders, they just use knives and clubs. The might not have the mass shootings, but the have a huge problem with other violent crimes.
So like they've had mass clubbing and mass stabbings at schools in the UK then right? I mean if I follow your logic.

I believe the NRA loves:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

which always comes up short in not finishing the thought. The rest of that should read "...even without guns people would want to kill people, sometimes they would manage to, but not so much since guns really work good for killing people. That's why guns are so great. Join the NRA and love guns with us."

HarveyH55 wrote:Where does it stop? Take away all the guns, and the crimes and killings continue. Ban knives and sporting equipment? ...
Isn't it fair to carry your thought there in both directions? On the one hand here is the question should we ban knives. Not getting past a bouncer with one (strange isn't it? wouldn't they want bars and clubs to be safer and pack them with as many weapons as possible?). On the other hand do you, Harvery, think weapons that are currently illegal should be put in the hands of regular citizens that want them? Fully automatic machine guns for example.

You said: should we ban knives? I say yes you shouldn't be carrying a knife as a weapon. Carrying a knife for self defense should be illegal.

My question to you is should we legalize fully automatic weapons and sell them at Walmart?

Into the Night wrote:
You also keep overlooking the low murder rate in the U.S.
I think it's fair to say that GDP per capita would be a good apples to apples basis for comparison wouldn't you? So let's look at countries similar to the US:
GDP per capita
Followed by the murder rate:Murders per 100,000
Country::GDP per capita::Murders per 100,000
United States :: 60,055 :: 5.35
Germany :: 47,603 :: 1.18
Australia :: 57,613 :: 0.94
Denmark :: 57,533 :: 0.98
Ireland :: 69,604 :: 0.80
Canada :: 46,233 :: 1.68
Japan :: 40,846 :: 0.28
Mexico :: 10,118 :: 19.26

So Mexico has nearly 4 times the murder rate we do but also 1/6th the gdp, just not a comparable country. Of comparable countries our murder rate is 5 to 6 times higher. So ITN what do you mean? Seems like the US has an extremely high homicide rate for our economic level.


Everything you say seems to be a personal vendetta. You're better than that.
Right now IBDM is bending over for gfm7175. It's not personal. They enjoy each others' companionship.
Butt WTF are you on about? I'm left clueless.
07-05-2020 00:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Wow, James....................................

You've really out-Jamesed yourself now......
07-05-2020 00:32
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wow, James....................................

You've really out-Jamesed yourself now......



Nah. You just don't understand why Einstein won a Nobel Prize because of the worst work that he did. I mean it included the work that Niels Bohr did in quantum mechanics.
07-05-2020 01:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:All mass shootings are in defenselessness zones.
So the vegas shooter had armed police outside his door within 12 minutes of the first shots fired.
The mass shooting was from 10:05 and 10:15 p.m.
officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m, armed. Professionals, dealing with a man barricaded in a room, shooting through the door at them.

Now are you saying that the concert attendees died because they were unarmed? They should have been able to return fire at the Mandalay Bay hotel. That had they returned fire from the crowd, at the Mandalay Bay hotel the disaster could have been averted?

I will remind you that Paddock's arsenal was entirely legal.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Criminal violence is an entirely different animal.

I think it's hilarious that you are trying to declassify "wacko" shootings as non-criminal.
I'm simply recognizing that it's different because it is. Different motive, means, and risks. Of course it's a crime but it's distinct from violence surrounding organized crime for example.
Edited on 07-05-2020 01:54
07-05-2020 01:46
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:All mass shootings are in defenselessness zones.
So the vegas shooter had armed police outside his door within 12 minutes of the first shots fired.
The mass shooting was from 10:05 and 10:15 p.m.
officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m, armed. Professionals, dealing with a man barricaded in a room, shooting through the door at them.

Now are you saying that the concert attendees died because they were unarmed? They should have been able to return fire at the Mandalay Bay hotel. That had they returned fire from the crowd, at the Mandalay Bay hotel the disaster could have been averted?

I will remind you that Paddock's arsenal was entirely legal.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Criminal violence is an entirely different animal.

I think it's hilarious that you are trying to declassify "wacko" shootings as non-criminal.
I'm simply recognizing that it's different because it is. Different motive, means, and risks.



As you noted, officers arrived after the shooter had stopped for 2 minutes.
In Tacoma, Washington, officers arrived on scene less than 2 minutes from the police station 45 minutes after the shooting stopped.
Why is in your example and the one I am giving, the time mentioned is after the last shot fired? Search Tacoma and shootout, this is the first query;

6 months later I mover to about 1.75 miles north of the shooting location. And as you said, officers arrive AFTER shots fired. Why do you highlight that for? Aren't police officers willing to engage a live fire shooting scenario?
We now have 2 examples where they did not engage active shooters.
http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2019/04/05/ranger-ash-street-shootout-remains-part-of-tacomas-gang-lore/

Basically what you are saying tmiddles is that the police let people die because they were afraid for their own lives. They have body armor and training. Yet they stopped the shooter a full 2 minutes after he fired his last shot. They let people die. You have made this obvious because what if they were the target? And their safety came first, right? You made this very obvious.
Sadly, I don't think people want to know this. In Tacoma, more shots were fired and it was probably considered stupid for anyone to get between an Army Ranger and his target. But a lone shooter is different because the target is not shooting back.
Please take time to consider what you are saying. That the police allowed over 20 people to be murdered. And yet run over someone or give them the cornavirus and they die, not an issue.

@gfm, I hope you like this post, it's for you

Edited on 07-05-2020 01:59
07-05-2020 01:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
James___ wrote:As you noted, officers arrived after the shooter had stopped for 2 minutes.
In Tacoma, Washington, officers arrived on scene less than 2 minutes from the police station 45 minutes after the shooting stopped.
Why is in your example and the one I am giving, the time mentioned is after the last shot fired? Search Tacoma and shootout, this is the first query;

6 months later I mover to about 1.75 miles north of the shooting location. And as you said, officers arrive AFTER shots fired. Why do you highlight that for? Aren't police officers willing to engage a live fire shooting scenario?
We now have 2 examples where they did not engage active shooters.
http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2019/04/05/ranger-ash-street-shootout-remains-part-of-tacomas-gang-lore/


Well said, James__. Spot on.

.
Attached image:

07-05-2020 02:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
James___ wrote: Nah. You just don't understand why Einstein won a Nobel Prize because of the worst work that he did. I mean it included the work that Niels Bohr did in quantum mechanics.

James__, here's an interesting bit of trivia for you. Einstein had always been disqualified from any Nobel Prizes for practically all his work because Alfred Nobel had stipulated that no Nobel Prize was ever to be awarded for math equations. He felt that humanity could not benefit from such. This is why there is no Nobel Prize in Math.

If Einstein was to get a Nobel award it would have to be for some amazing world-changing demonstration that would benefit humanity. All Einstein did was develop models and use lots of math.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-05-2020 02:22
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Nah. You just don't understand why Einstein won a Nobel Prize because of the worst work that he did. I mean it included the work that Niels Bohr did in quantum mechanics.

James__, here's an interesting bit of trivia for you. Einstein had always been disqualified from any Nobel Prizes for practically all his work because Alfred Nobel had stipulated that no Nobel Prize was ever to be awarded for math equations. He felt that humanity could not benefit from such. This is why there is no Nobel Prize in Math.

If Einstein was to get a Nobel award it would have to be for some amazing world-changing demonstration that would benefit humanity. All Einstein did was develop models and use lots of math.

.



There is a proof that you are wrong. In 1927 it was found that a dense body such as our Sun changed the motion of light. This proved that light has mass. That finding was largely ignored until a few scientists claimed that light does have mass. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
With this, in physics a photon has no rest mass, ergo, it has no mass. And the light emitted from a distant star has an absolute course/trajectory because it has no mass. As for me, IMHO his Nobel Prize for the photoeclectirc effect was because he and Bohr were adversaries. God Doesn't Roll the Dice says Einstein while Niels Bohr said that 99% of the time, an electron orbiting a hyrdrogen atom can be calculated precisely, the other 1% of the time, it could be across the universe.
That's basically the difference between Bohr's quantum mechanics and Einstein's Relativity. The Nobel Prize supported both theories and at the same time gave Einstein what he deserved.

This might show the prize's political nature; https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

Am not really sure if the people in here want to get in to the early history of science.
Edited on 07-05-2020 02:29
07-05-2020 02:44
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
If guns were banned, would criminals follow that law? We already have laws that ban robbery and murder, yet people are still robbed and murdered.

We had a school shooting a year or so ago, in which there was an armed resource officer on campus. He waited until the 911 police to arrive, before getting involved. Pulse Night Club (James's favorite bar), there were two off-duty officers on sight, working security.

Why is banning guns so important, when there are thousands of babies murdered everyday, legally?
07-05-2020 03:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
HarveyH55 wrote:
If guns were banned, would criminals follow that law?
Wealthy criminals would not (Mexican drug cartels are an example). Poor criminals and teenage boys wouldn't have a lot of options so yes they would.

HarveyH55 wrote:...people are still robbed and murdered.
murdered at 5 to 6 times the rate they are in comparable countries with stricter gun laws.

HarveyH55 wrote:...Pulse Night Club (James's favorite bar),
implying that James is gay as an insult is despicable Harvey. Being gay is not a mark against someone.

HarveyH55 wrote:Why is banning guns so important, when there are thousands of babies murdered everyday, legally?
I guess it's God's will Harvey.

Not going to answer the machine gun question?
Edited on 07-05-2020 03:03
07-05-2020 03:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
James___ wrote:There is a proof that you are wrong.

You like to say that just before agreeing with me. OK, let's get our agreement out of the way.

James___ wrote: In 1927 it was found that a dense body such as our Sun changed the motion of light. This proved that light has mass.

Exactly, this is the demonstration I mentioned.

James___ wrote: That finding was largely ignored until a few scientists claimed that light does have mass.

Nope. It was a huge deal from the moment the demonstration occurred. Besides, when new science passes scrutiny under the scientific method, it is always a big deal; scientists don't ignore it ... and neither do governments or Big Money.

James___ wrote: With this, in physics a photon has no rest mass, ergo, it has no mass.

Nope. There is no such thing as a photon at rest. Hence, there is no such thing as a photon that has no mass.

E = mC^2 holds.

E= 6.6262*10^-34 Joule Seconds * Frequency

Ergo,

photon mass = 6.6262*10^-34 Joule Seconds * Frequency / C^2

Enjoy!

The Nobel Prize began as an effort to motivate people to help humanity. Today, it has become a political campaign to support Marxism wordwide, i.e. it's worthless.




All laureates are rationalized as having "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind" ... even if nothing major was accomplished. The Nobel Prize has become a political award for loyalty to socialism.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-05-2020 05:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Nice try, violence, is still violence, and UK still has murder, and attempted murders, they just use knives and clubs. The might not have the mass shootings, but the have a huge problem with other violent crimes.
So like they've had mass clubbing and mass stabbings at schools in the UK then right? I mean if I follow your logic.

I believe the NRA loves:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

which always comes up short in not finishing the thought. The rest of that should read "...even without guns people would want to kill people, sometimes they would manage to, but not so much since guns really work good for killing people. That's why guns are so great. Join the NRA and love guns with us."

HarveyH55 wrote:Where does it stop? Take away all the guns, and the crimes and killings continue. Ban knives and sporting equipment? ...
Isn't it fair to carry your thought there in both directions? On the one hand here is the question should we ban knives. Not getting past a bouncer with one (strange isn't it? wouldn't they want bars and clubs to be safer and pack them with as many weapons as possible?). On the other hand do you, Harvery, think weapons that are currently illegal should be put in the hands of regular citizens that want them? Fully automatic machine guns for example.

You said: should we ban knives? I say yes you shouldn't be carrying a knife as a weapon. Carrying a knife for self defense should be illegal.

My question to you is should we legalize fully automatic weapons and sell them at Walmart?

Into the Night wrote:
You also keep overlooking the low murder rate in the U.S.
I think it's fair to say that GDP per capita would be a good apples to apples basis for comparison wouldn't you? So let's look at countries similar to the US:
GDP per capita
Followed by the murder rate:Murders per 100,000
Country::GDP per capita::Murders per 100,000
United States :: 60,055 :: 5.35
Germany :: 47,603 :: 1.18
Australia :: 57,613 :: 0.94
Denmark :: 57,533 :: 0.98
Ireland :: 69,604 :: 0.80
Canada :: 46,233 :: 1.68
Japan :: 40,846 :: 0.28
Mexico :: 10,118 :: 19.26

So Mexico has nearly 4 times the murder rate we do but also 1/6th the gdp, just not a comparable country. Of comparable countries our murder rate is 5 to 6 times higher. So ITN what do you mean? Seems like the US has an extremely high homicide rate for our economic level.

Non-sequitur fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-05-2020 05:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:All mass shootings are in defenselessness zones.
So the vegas shooter had armed police outside his door within 12 minutes of the first shots fired.
The mass shooting was from 10:05 and 10:15 p.m.
officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m, armed. Professionals, dealing with a man barricaded in a room, shooting through the door at them.

Now are you saying that the concert attendees died because they were unarmed?

No, they died because they were shot, or they were trampled.
tmiddles wrote:
They should have been able to return fire at the Mandalay Bay hotel.

No one was carrying a weapon of that range, and shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel across the street would put more innocents at risk.
tmiddles wrote:
That had they returned fire from the crowd, at the Mandalay Bay hotel the disaster could have been averted?

No.
tmiddles wrote:
I will remind you that Paddock's arsenal was entirely legal.

Yes it was. Carting all that stuff into the hotel, however, wasn't. The hotel does not give permission for it's guests to do that. As a result, the MGM is partially to blame, and the lawsuits filed against it went accordingly.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Criminal violence is an entirely different animal.

I think it's hilarious that you are trying to declassify "wacko" shootings as non-criminal.
I'm simply recognizing that it's different because it is. Different motive, means, and risks. Of course it's a crime but it's distinct from violence surrounding organized crime for example.

Owning the guns or the bumpstocks is not a crime. Carrying them onto the hotel property was. Shooting at people was.

You keep trying to conflate a single incident to millions of gun owners that did not and never will shoot up rock concerts from hotel rooms in Las Vegas.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-05-2020 10:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...vegas...concert attendees died because they were unarmed?
No, ....
So how do gun rights apply to this tragedy in any positive way? This would not have happened at all in a country that banned guns outright.

Into the Night wrote:...shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel across the street would put more innocents at risk.
We are talking about carrying guns in public areas. It is always putting people at risk to have a shootout in public.

Into the Night wrote:...MGM is partially to blame, ...
You only have to search ever citizens luggage for guns if they are widely available. Are you saying that hotels should search every guest and their luggage?

Into the Night wrote:You keep trying to conflate a single incident to millions of gun owners that did not and never will shoot up rock concerts from hotel rooms in Las Vegas.
Actually my point is that Paddock had the most lethal arsenal that was legal. Had more lethal weapons of mass murder been available a lot more people would have died. If laws had been tighter fewer people would have died.

If the law limited firearm possession to single shot long guns and hand guns only suitable for use at short ranges how many people would have died in Vegas? And how would that put millions of gun owners at risk of not being able to defend themselves?

The "Wacko" crimes, like paddocks, completely debunk the NRA fantasy that laws do nothing since criminals can get anything. The wackos are only able to get what is easy to find.

This also explains the murder rate in the U.S. being so much higher than comparable countries. (why did you say the opposite?)
Edited on 07-05-2020 10:34
07-05-2020 11:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7455)
tmiddles wrote:This would not have happened at all in a country that banned guns outright.

Intentional Lie #1. (The Cambria Shootings).

tmiddles wrote: We are talking about carrying guns in public areas. It is always putting people at risk to have a shootout in public.

Intentional Lie #2. Shootouts don't happen when everyone is armed, Re: NRA shooting ranges.

You are a gun craven and an intellectual coward. You lie rather than face your irrational fears.

tmiddles wrote: You only have to search ever citizens luggage for guns if they are widely available. Are you saying that hotels should search every guest and their luggage?

Of course, if they are going to disallow firearms to be brought in. Why should We the Law Abiding People suffer infringements on our Constitutional liberties just because Manadalay Bay wants to prohibit firearms on their property?

tmiddles wrote:Actually my point is that Paddock had the most lethal arsenal that was legal. Had more lethal weapons of mass murder been available a lot more people would have died.

Intentional Lie #3. If there had been armed people nearby Paddock that could have dropped him then he wouldn't have been able to use any arsenal if he was dead.

tmiddles wrote: If laws had been tighter fewer people would have died.

Intentional Lie #4. If the law had allowed everybody to put a cap in the bastard, fewer people would have died.

tmiddles wrote: The "Wacko" crimes, like paddocks, completely debunk the NRA fantasy that laws do nothing since criminals can get anything. The wackos are only able to get what is easy to find.

Intentional Lie #5. You know those you classify as "Wackos" were very smart and calculating ... and they were determined. Strict gun control merely serves as a temperary inconvenience and merely delays the inevitable.

tmiddles wrote:This also explains the murder rate in the U.S. being so much higher than comparable countries.

Intentional Lie #6: You know there are no comparable countries.

.
Attached image:

07-05-2020 11:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...vegas...concert attendees died because they were unarmed?
No, ....
So how do gun rights apply to this tragedy in any positive way? This would not have happened at all in a country that banned guns outright.

Mass shootings occur in countries that try to ban guns outright.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel across the street would put more innocents at risk.
We are talking about carrying guns in public areas. It is always putting people at risk to have a shootout in public.

Yes it does. Sometimes, however, it is necessary anyway.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...MGM is partially to blame, ...
You only have to search ever citizens luggage for guns if they are widely available. Are you saying that hotels should search every guest and their luggage?

Why was MGM allowing so many large and heavy cases to be carried to the room? Why was MGM not checking on the room for several days?
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:You keep trying to conflate a single incident to millions of gun owners that did not and never will shoot up rock concerts from hotel rooms in Las Vegas.
Actually my point is that Paddock had the most lethal arsenal that was legal.

Yes. It's legal. His crime, however, wasn't.
tmiddles wrote:
Had more lethal weapons of mass murder been available a lot more people would have died.

Nope. He didn't use all the weapons he had. Indeed, if he had used a rifle with a scope and taking well aimed single shots, instead of blasting away with the bumpstocks, he would've killed far more people. As it was, most of the bullets missed.
tmiddles wrote:
If laws had been tighter fewer people would have died.

You don't get to change the Constitution. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
If the law limited firearm possession to single shot long guns and hand guns only suitable for use at short ranges how many people would have died in Vegas?

Speculation. Pointless direction to take the conversation.
tmiddles wrote:
And how would that put millions of gun owners at risk of not being able to defend themselves?

You don't get to decide what weapon people can use to defend themselves. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
The "Wacko" crimes, like paddocks, completely debunk the NRA fantasy that laws do nothing since criminals can get anything. The wackos are only able to get what is easy to find.

You don't get to declare what is easy to find. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
This also explains the murder rate in the U.S. being so much higher than comparable countries. (why did you say the opposite?)

It's not high. It's low. You are cherry picking the 'comparable countries'.
You are still conflating a single incident with all law abiding gun owners. Bigotry.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 5 of 20<<<34567>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact