Page 1 of 1

Remember...this guy?

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:34 pm
by Nightshade
Image

Sayfullo Saipov...you know, the muslim terrorist that mowed down innocents just a few days ago?
Predictably, the same politicians, media personalities, actors, commentators and social media celebrities who after the terror attack in New York City just a few days ago warned about politicizing the tragedy are now rallying to politicize today's incident.
The incident where an atheist killed white churchgoers in rural Texas.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/n ... -massacre/

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:11 pm
by Top Gun
Maybe try reading less shitty websites and then you'll have less shitty opinions.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:57 am
by callmeslick
another one willing to LIE for ideology. The shooter in Texas had it in for his mother in law. Nothing about religion. Nothing about ideology. Just another gun in the hands of a reckless, hateful idiot. Enough already?

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:46 am
by woodchip
Yes a shooter who shouldn't have been able to buy a firearm but could because one federal agency didn't report his crimes to another federal agency. Ain't big government wonderful. And the boob Dems are clucking about how we need more gun laws.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:08 pm
by Tunnelcat
Aaaah woodchip? It was the military who screwed up, not some random government agency.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:57 am
by woodchip
Tunnelcat wrote:Aaaah woodchip? It was the military who screwed up, not some random government agency.
Is not the Air Force a govt. agency? And where did I use the word "random"?

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 4:43 pm
by Tunnelcat
A too quick reply on my part. When I said random, I meant any other agency that's not part of the military. I should have asked it this way. As a military man and a conservative yourself, do you believe that the military can do no wrong? I understand that most conservatives hold the military in high regard, or am I making a mistaken assumption?

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:47 pm
by Nightshade
Tunnelcat wrote:A too quick reply on my part. When I said random, I meant any other agency that's not part of the military. I should have asked it this way. As a military man and a conservative yourself, do you believe that the military can do no wrong? I understand that most conservatives hold the military in high regard, or am I making a mistaken assumption?
Any large government agency can make errors- yes, even in the military. Not just errors, but corruption to the point of people dying (well, not just the enemy of course.) Just look at the VA.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:40 pm
by Ferno
Time to face it: America needs gun control.

"but second amendment!" I hear. Yeah no, that's been abused every time a shooting has happened. Check the writing; says 'well regulated militia'. Your founding fathers were wanting gun control. That's what well regulated means.

Rest of the world - gun control laws, no mass shootings.
America - no gun control laws; has mass shootings.

Rest of the world - not dumb enough to sell guns to everyone, including disturbed people.
America - dumb enough to sell guns to everyone, including disturbed people.

America is like the little kid who won't eat their vegetables, or get their shots, or take a bath, or go to school when it comes to guns.

I can hear it now -- "If we have gun control, the government will become tyrannical!". Canada has gun control. The UK has gun control. Japan has gun control. Australia has gun control. You see those governments being tyrannical? Me either because it won't happen.

And then there's this one: "if there's gun control, the old lady won't be able to defend herself from the big bad burly man!". Nobody's trying to take them away from the honest owner. She'll be more likely to get one because she'll pass all the background checks.

Maybe if the NRA started treating gun owners like the FAA treats pilots, there wouldn't be a mass shooting every day.

Make the damn connection already.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:05 am
by Grendel
Ferno wrote:Time to face it: America needs gun control.

"but second amendment!" I hear. Yeah no, that's been abused every time a shooting has happened. Check the writing; says 'well regulated militia'. Your founding fathers were wanting gun control. That's what well regulated means.
Nope. "well regulated" means "functioning" in this context. Also, the 2nd doesn't grant any right, it states that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Quite the opposite of control.
Ferno wrote:Rest of the world - gun control laws, no mass shootings.
America - no gun control laws; has mass shootings.
Nope, mass shootings are happening everywhere, not only the US. See, people bend on doing it don't give a shit about laws and will get guns, explosives or any other implement they can use to shell out harm.
Ferno wrote:Rest of the world - not dumb enough to sell guns to everyone, including disturbed people.
America - dumb enough to sell guns to everyone, including disturbed people.
That's just stupid. "America" doesn't sell guns to everyone, eg. you will not be able to legally buy one here. Besides that you can buy or make a gun anywhere if you are determined enough.
Ferno wrote:Maybe if the NRA started treating gun owners like the FAA treats pilots, there wouldn't be a mass shooting every day.

Make the damn connection already.
You may want to look into that a bit deeper, those connections are a lot more complicated that the mass media is portraying them to you.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:20 am
by Top Gun
Tell me where else mass shootings happen with anywhere near the frequency that they do in the US. I'll wait.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:41 pm
by Tunnelcat
Nightshade wrote:
Tunnelcat wrote:A too quick reply on my part. When I said random, I meant any other agency that's not part of the military. I should have asked it this way. As a military man and a conservative yourself, do you believe that the military can do no wrong? I understand that most conservatives hold the military in high regard, or am I making a mistaken assumption?
Any large government agency can make errors- yes, even in the military. Not just errors, but corruption to the point of people dying (well, not just the enemy of course.) Just look at the VA.
The private sector is no different. Just look at Takata. They still haven't been able to replace all the defective airbags that were put into millions of cars, so a lot of people are still driving around with bombs in their steering wheels. They may even go bankrupt just to escape liability. At least the government is answerable to the people, if people would just tell Congress to do their damn job at oversight. It's either that or vote the bastards out. It seems to be either benign neglect or or deliberate neglect with our government and that can and should be addressed.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 1:19 am
by Ferno
Grendel wrote:Quite the opposite of control.
Pretty sure "regulated" and "control" mean the same thing. And in the sense of 'well regulated', it should be a militia overseen (in an administrative sense and not actively run) by a state-level body. Every american who thinks of the 2nd always concentrates on the 'shall not be infringed' part and acts like the first part doesn't even exist.
people bend on doing it don't give a shit about laws and will get guns, explosives or any other implement they can use to shell out harm.
And that's exactly what I was talking about. There's always one that twists it around to go "but criminals do it so the laws won't work!". How about we get rid of seatbelts because some people don't wear them? How about we get rid of motorcycle helmets because some people don't wear helmets? How about we not get vaccines because they're not 100% effective? How about we ban all cars from the roads because some have used them to kill others? How about we get rid of the laws against stealing because some people steal? How about we get rid of building codes because some people don't build to code? In fact, let's get rid of ALL the laws, because some people don't follow them. The "don't make laws because some people won't follow them" line of thinking is INSANE. Laws are created to reflect what society wants as a whole, and they're created to protect society as a whole.

Criminals target individuals because they work on a sense of power and control over an individual. They don't have that sense when it comes to a crowd, so they run away. Mass shooters target a lot of people because they just don't give a ★■◆● What we call "normal" in ourselves is broken in them. And they're law abiding. That's why you see in the story, every time, the guy LEGALLY bought his guns and the guy had a mental illness. The only time a criminal known to police does a mass shooting is in the movies.
"America" doesn't sell guns to everyone, eg. you will not be able to legally buy one here. Besides that you can buy or make a gun anywhere if you are determined enough.
All I'd have to do to get a gun in your country is be a legal citizen for six months, pass a laughably easy test (esp. in texas) and buy as many guns as I want. I checked. You don't have security screenings (at the federal level). You don't have reference interviews (at the federal level). You don't have a 28 day waiting period (again, federal level). You don't have to register each firearm you possess (yes, federal level). Especially when it comes to private sales. Fail.
Ferno wrote:You may want to look into that a bit deeper, those connections are a lot more complicated that the mass media is portraying them to you.
You mean the connection of "mentally disturbed person buys guns legally, then kills XX victims", that happens every few months in places with lax regulations?

Until Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, and Japan start having mass shootings every few months, there's no way your example can hold water. Your guys' love affair with "don't touch my guns!" is the key to all of this - the child needs to have its candy taken away until it grows up a little. You've done it your way for years, and the end result is people get shot. Every time. Time for a different way.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:05 am
by Spidey
The question everyone is failing to address here is…why are people behaving this way?

But no, why do that…focusing on guns is so much easier…

And its not the mental illness of the individual that’s at issue here, it’s the mental illness of the society that is at fault, Hollywood glorifies the use of violence and guns…the media uses every event to generate revenue. (to name only a couple of examples)

But just keep blaming the guns…

Just slap a big band-aid on that giant gaping festering wound, and maybe it will just go away.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:39 am
by callmeslick
from where I sit, Hollywood does NOT glorify guns to the extent they did when I was young, it is a far more nuanced view nowadays. Carry on.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:26 am
by Nightshade
callmeslick wrote:from where I sit, Hollywood does NOT glorify guns to the extent they did when I was young, it is a far more nuanced view nowadays. Carry on.
My ass.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:43 pm
by Tunnelcat
Hold on slick. A study done in 2012 indicated that gun violence in PG-13 movies has nearly tripled and that was between 1985 and 2012, so I'm afraid I have to agree with NS and Spidey. The guns shown in modern movies are far more sophisticated and sexy looking than the little dinky pea shooters, revolvers, shotguns and even the Thompson Machine Gun that were used in the old movies. Guns now seem to represent sex and power in most modern movies and even TV shows. Plus, the modern focus on the resulting blood, carnage and gore is far more prevalent and graphic. The most blood I ever saw as a kid in the movies was never really colored bright red, it was kind of a muted rust color (they used chocolate syrup in the black and white movies) and there was very little of it at movie crime scenes. Ditto in the war movies of the time. Remember how the never before seen graphic news footage of the fighting in Vietnam shocked most people back in the 1960's? People had never seen that stuff before. Also, the resulting wounds in the movies were not really that graphic. Now though, movies seem to wallow in a bloody gibfest (thank you DOOM) compared to the tame and mostly censored stuff that was common in the 1950's.

http://whotv.com/2013/11/11/movie-study ... s-triples/

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:04 pm
by Spidey
Now Now, don’t let the facts get in the way of slick’s pipe dream.

Not to mention the fact that when slick was younger Hollywood depicted good guys and bad guys, and you knew who was who, now the line is pretty much blurred.

Went to see Dirty Mary Crazy Larry with a group of friends, at the end I clapped when they got creamed by the train…some of those “friends” called me crazy and still won’t talk to me to this day.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:43 pm
by Grendel
Ferno wrote:Every american who thinks of the 2nd always concentrates on the 'shall not be infringed' part and acts like the first part doesn't even exist.
The SCOTUS does, good enough for me.
Ferno wrote:
people bend on doing it don't give a shit about laws and will get guns, explosives or any other implement they can use to shell out harm.
And that's exactly what I was talking about. There's always one that twists it around to go "but criminals do it so the laws won't work!". How about we get rid of seatbelts because some people don't wear them? How about we get rid of motorcycle helmets because some people don't wear helmets? How about we not get vaccines because they're not 100% effective? [..]

You lost me w/ that paragraph. I didn't say to get rid of laws, I merely pointed out that criminals by definition don't heed laws. If you knew a bit more about the gun related laws here you would know that guns are heavily regulated. Point is that these laws only affect law abiding people ! Adding more laws will do squat to prevent violence.
Ferno wrote:How about we ban all cars from the roads because some have used them to kill others?

Indeed, how about it ? There are lots of calls to ban guns because some where used to kill people...

I'm for banning alcohol. Killed a mindboggling amount of people.
Ferno wrote:The "don't make laws because some people won't follow them" line of thinking is INSANE. Laws are created to reflect what society wants as a whole, and they're created to protect society as a whole.
Ideally, yes. Except it doesn't work w/ guns. Small objects that are easy to make and in high demand by criminals. My line is "don't make laws that put law abiding people at risk."
Ferno wrote:Criminals target individuals because they work on a sense of power and control over an individual. They don't have that sense when it comes to a crowd, so they run away. Mass shooters target a lot of people because they just don't give a ★■◆● What we call "normal" in ourselves is broken in them. And they're law abiding. That's why you see in the story, every time, the guy LEGALLY bought his guns and the guy had a mental illness. The only time a criminal known to police does a mass shooting is in the movies.
Mass shooters *always* target people in an area where they can safely assume nobody is armed. They are *always* stopped after being confronted by someone w/ a gun. Some of the shooters were know by police BTW, where did that last sentence come from ?
Ferno wrote:
"America" doesn't sell guns to everyone, eg. you will not be able to legally buy one here. Besides that you can buy or make a gun anywhere if you are determined enough.
All I'd have to do to get a gun in your country is be a legal citizen for six months, pass a laughably easy test (esp. in texas) and buy as many guns as I want. I checked. You don't have security screenings (at the federal level). You don't have reference interviews (at the federal level). You don't have a 28 day waiting period (again, federal level). You don't have to register each firearm you possess (yes, federal level). Especially when it comes to private sales. Fail.
Not a good check. You can legally buy guns after becoming a legal resident. No citizenship required ("We the People" and all that.) In order to do that you will pass a pretty thorough background check that takes months to complete *before* you gain the legal status. If you go out on your own and buy a gun privately w/o the legal status -- congratulations, you are now a felon. Once caught you will be prosecuted and returned to your country.
Ferno wrote:You mean the connection of "mentally disturbed person buys guns legally, then kills XX victims", that happens every few months in places with lax regulations?
How about the mentally deranged persons getting trucks, then killing XX victims ? Nobody is calling to ban trucks.
Ferno wrote:Until Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, and Japan start having mass shootings every few months, there's no way your example can hold water. Your guys' love affair with "don't touch my guns!" is the key to all of this - the child needs to have its candy taken away until it grows up a little. You've done it your way for years, and the end result is people get shot. Every time. Time for a different way.
And you guys' habit to treat all gun owners equally bad will prevent that from happening. You need to understand that your average gun owner is a law abiding person to a fault and is as offended by these events as everybody else. Except that suddenly the public throws them into the same bucket w/ the latest killer.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compa ... nd-europe/
Spidey wrote:The question everyone is failing to address here is…why are people behaving this way?
I was prepared to go there, in time :P

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:46 pm
by callmeslick
Spidey wrote:Now Now, don’t let the facts get in the way of slick’s pipe dream.

Not to mention the fact that when slick was younger Hollywood depicted good guys and bad guys, and you knew who was who, now the line is pretty much blurred.

Went to see Dirty Mary Crazy Larry with a group of friends, at the end I clapped when they got creamed by the train…some of those “friends” called me crazy and still won’t talk to me to this day.
valid point regarding the nuance between good and bad. Still, while the realism was more cartoonish(graphics depicting EVERYTHING were), I still think the glorification was more evident. While I REALLY hate to point to video gaming as a boogieman, one does have to ponder the effect of changing the entertainment from WATCHING violence to a more participitory medium.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:04 am
by Krom
The question we have to ask is: Will taking away all the guns also take away the violence?

If you think it will, then maybe you are part of the problem. Any solution that doesn't involve social efforts is doomed to fail. We should be rebuilding our destroyed mental health system, reversing economic inequality, legalizing drugs so that the rebuilt mental health system could help people recover peacefully, and generally focusing on eliminating reasons why people would want to commit mass murder instead of playing whack-a-mole with the methods.

The problem with just focusing on gun control/drug enforcement/etc is that they are all excluding methods of controlling something, they drive people out of society. If you want to solve a social problem, you need to include people and pull society together to prevent it from happening. I'm not saying gun control isn't part of a solution, but if you think it is THE solution then you are likely inviting a suicide bomber into your neighborhood.

Re: Remember...this guy?

Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:05 pm
by callmeslick
who, anyplace, is suggesting 'taking away all the guns'? I mean I've heard talk of limiting sales of certain types, and a lot of talk about registration requirements and backgound checks being made far more robust, but not wholesale confiscation. That, along with being a logistical nightmare WOULD run foul of even my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. So, let's start with being honest about what is being called for, at least. I agree that something societal in nature has to be a huge component. There is a reason why other societies with weapons don't suffer from the rash of idiocy we see.