Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Oh, Shoot (Connecticut)Follow

#252 Dec 19 2012 at 2:14 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Alright. Then all's I got is the Injuns

Meh what's a few million dead when you give them casino liscenes 8 generations later. Omelet, eggs, amirite? Tough to qualify the millions of dead slaves as "just" discrimination, but whatever. Could we agree it was at least 3/5ths of a genocide?


Sure, I guess. I don't think either case was a "deliberate and systematic extermination", although the Native American story comes pretty close, so yeah, whatever.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#253 Dec 19 2012 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Sure, I guess. I don't think either case was a "deliberate and systematic extermination"

Well "either case" sort of lumps everyone who was living on the continent before Europeans arrived as sort of a homogenous mass of abstract cultures. Which wasn't the case. If Stalin had killed everyone who lived east of Moscow and repopulated with ethnic Russians, that would have been a similar act. Regardless, the US is built around power and it's consolidation, like most nation states. Not really that big of a deal aside from the lagging behind most of the rest of the first world by decades on progress on liberty and human rights issues.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#254 Dec 19 2012 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The American Indian story absolutely was deliberate and systematic. Not just the whole Trail of Tears thing and related forced relocation programs or various armed conflicts but also a century-long series of policies designed to eliminate Native American culture.
lolwiki wrote:
Americanization policies were based on the idea that when indigenous people learned United States (American) customs and values, they would be able to merge tribal traditions with American culture and peacefully join the majority society. After the end of the Indian Wars, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the government outlawed the practice of traditional religious ceremonies. It established boarding schools which children were required to attend. In these schools they were forced to speak English, study standard subjects, attend church, and leave tribal traditions behind.


I'll take a moment to note the sad irony of people crying about a "War on Christmas" in a nation where American Indian children were forbidden by law to practice their native religion and instead forced to attend special schools where they were taught Christianity. That's what a real "war on religion" looks like, not being told "Happy holidays" at Target.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 2:26pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#255 Dec 19 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
gbaji wrote:

Correct. More to the point, simply saying "that puts more guns on the streets" doesn't have any meaning if you can't show that "more guns on the streets" is actually a bad thing.

Ok, let me say more guns on the streets, in our homes, in our walmarts and mcdonalds, in our cars, on our roadways in our parks and even on our mountain tops would result in more people being shot by guns (probably more sheep cows and grails being shot too).

Whether or not that is a bad thing is purely opinion.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#256 Dec 19 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts

As I mentioned before, there's also the Cambodian genocide. For which, depending on who you read, the US responsibility was somewhere between ignoring, enabling, or causing.


Edited, Dec 19th 2012 2:42pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#257 Dec 19 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I'll take a moment to note the sad irony of people crying about a "War on Christmas" in a nation where American Indian children were forbidden by law to practice their native religion and instead forced to attend special schools where they were taught Christianity. That's what a real "war on religion" looks like, not being told "Happy holidays" at Target.

Merry Soyal Smiley: smile
____________________________
LOOK here.
#258 Dec 19 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Default
******
21,715 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The American Indian story absolutely was deliberate and systematic.


Sure, but it wasn't a deliberate and systematic extermination. Conversion? Sure. Persecution? OK. Extermination? In some cases, but certainly not systematically.

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#259 Dec 19 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
BrownDuck wrote:

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.

Yeah, there's no way that us Americans could ever be as evil as Hitler.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#260 Dec 19 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.

Yeah, there's no way that us Americans could ever be as evil as Hitler.

Never said that. Genocide is a very specific act involving the extermination of a group of people, ethnic, religious, or otherwise. Descrminitation, persecution, slavery, and even war (in most cases) are all very ugly things, sometimes just as ugly if not more so than Hitler, but that doesn't automatically qualify them as genocide. Pull your head out of your ass.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#261 Dec 19 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
Sure, but it wasn't a deliberate and systematic extermination. Conversion? Sure. Persecution? OK. Extermination? In some cases, but certainly not systematically.

It was both. Exterminate them physically and/or exterminate them as a people depending on the day. I have no idea why you'd argue it wasn't systematic given that there were decisions made, laws passed and government actions taken at every step towards the ultimate end goal of eliminating the Native American presence but whatever.
Quote:
I still wouldn't call it genocide.

You're wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#262 Dec 19 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I still wouldn't call it genocide.

You're wrong.
NO U
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#263 Dec 19 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.

Yeah, there's no way that us Americans could ever be as evil as Hitler.

Seriously; we're smart enough to know if you put people in camps it's better to brainwash, convert and assimilate. Killing people has a terrible long-term return from an investment standpoint. Besides, slave labor is where the money is anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#264 Dec 19 2012 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Besides, slave labor is where the money is anyway.

It's still working for us in China.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#265 Dec 19 2012 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Per capita, I'd be willing to wager that the US Government was more effective than Hitler or Rwanda at getting rid of the undesirables. Granted no one bothered to try and stop us either.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 2:50pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#266 Dec 19 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Besides, slave labor is where the money is anyway.

It's still working for us in China.

Why mess with a good thing?

Jophiel wrote:
Per capita, I'd be willing to wager that the US Government was more effective than Hitler or Rwanda at getting rid of the undesirables. Granted no one bothered to try and stop us either.


On that thought, I'm backing the 3/5 genocide thing because, frankly, the Europeans killed off a bunch before we were even a country. They don't get a free pass on this one. The other 2/5 belongs to them.


Edited, Dec 19th 2012 1:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#267 Dec 19 2012 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
paulsol wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What's really strange about the law is that actual mass shootings at schools had been on the decline for some time.


31 school shootings since Columbine.


Yup. That's exactly my point:

gbaji wrote:
It was really only *after* the law was passed that we started seeing a noticeable uptick in the random target style mass shootings on school grounds.


The law was passed in 1990, then modified in 1996 to address some constitutional issues. The Columbine shooting occurred in 1999. So after the law was passed. There were very very few mass shootings on school campuses in US history prior to the passage of this law. Gun violence? Yes. But there's a huge difference between an angry guy coming onto campus and shooting the guy who stole his girlfriend or a rival gang member, and a guy who decides to commit suicide by taking out as many random people on a school campus as possible until he's stopped.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#268 Dec 19 2012 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What's really strange about the law is that actual mass shootings at schools had been on the decline for some time.


31 school shootings since Columbine.


Yup. That's exactly my point:

gbaji wrote:
It was really only *after* the law was passed that we started seeing a noticeable uptick in the random target style mass shootings on school grounds.


The law was passed in 1990, then modified in 1996 to address some constitutional issues. The Columbine shooting occurred in 1999. So after the law was passed. There were very very few mass shootings on school campuses in US history prior to the passage of this law.


Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


Edited, Dec 19th 2012 4:10pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#269 Dec 19 2012 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Sure, but it wasn't a deliberate and systematic extermination. Conversion? Sure. Persecution? OK. Extermination? In some cases, but certainly not systematically.

It was both. Exterminate them physically and/or exterminate them as a people depending on the day. I have no idea why you'd argue it wasn't systematic given that there were decisions made, laws passed and government actions taken at every step towards the ultimate end goal of eliminating the Native American presence but whatever.


But not extermination though. He was saying that while there were instances of attempts at extermination, they were not systematic.

You are correct that the goal of eliminating the Native American presence as a separate entity from the US presence was there and was systematic, but that's true of any intermixing of cultures pretty much throughout history. The methods vary from assimilation to extermination, from peaceful to violent, but the instances of any single culture surviving intact and unchanged after encountering another (especially if the other is significantly more powerful) are incredibly rare in human history. I point this out only to show that what happened in the US is not rare or even unusual, but is the norm. The only reason we single it out is because it's among the most recent examples occurring on that scale.

And while it's not a great example of US history, in the scope of wider human history, it is far from the worst example (and a lot better than even some more recent examples, as pointed out earlier). Not a whole lot of cultural assimilation occurred historically with flowers and kindness.

Quote:
Quote:
I still wouldn't call it genocide.

You're wrong.


No, he's right. At no point was there an policy to actually kill every single Native American on US soil, or anything remotely close to that. That's what genocide is. There were relatively isolated attempts to wipe out individual tribes or sub tribes, but that's not even remotely the same thing. That's not to say that a bunch of really screwed up stuff was done to Native Americans, but it was not genocide.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#270 Dec 19 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen. Here's an long but interesting list of school shootings in the US. It is interesting how frequently the early ones involved some guy shooting a girl who rejected his advances and then killing himself, but that's a side issue.


I'm not discounting social factors contributing to an increase in people who decide they want to do this sort of thing, but those factors are separate from whether or not we have a law like the Gun Free Schools Act in effect. I'm asking whether a law like that actually helps or hurts. And IMO all it really does is ensure that when some disturbed individual decides to take out a bunch of random people that the best locations for him to do so will be those locations "protected" by those kinds of laws. Which in this specific case means public schools.


Let me amend my assumptions a bit then. Let's assume we can't eliminate the 2nd amendment and we can't snap our fingers and ensure that no such disturbed individuals ever appear within society. How do you protect kids in schools from this kind of violence?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#271 Dec 19 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen.


Not at all. The public media explosion does contribute significantly to the problem, however. When the perpetrator is given celebrity status the way these guys are, it makes the idea more appealing to certain individuals. There's a whole side-debate going on regarding the extent to which public media response to these events contributes to the problem and whether this potential celebrity status might be a larger part of the problem.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 4:43pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#272 Dec 19 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,705 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hatchets are just as efficient as guns for killing people.


Hachets have unlimited ammo.
____________________________
What if the bird will not sing?
Nobunaga answers, "Kill it!"
Hideyoshi answers, "Make it want to sing."
Ieyasu answers, "Wait."
Timelordwho answers "Just as Planned."
#273 Dec 19 2012 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Hatchets are just as efficient as guns for killing people.


Hachets have unlimited ammo.


And they're 1HK!



panic hatchet is OP
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#274 Dec 19 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Native Americans had hatchets so we couldn't genocide them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#275 Dec 19 2012 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,688 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Native Americans had hatchets so we couldn't genocide them.


And if the French hadn't helped us then the new Americans would have been genocided by the British, right?

(I like how firefox wanted me to capitalize American and British but was okay with French being lowercase.)
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#276 Dec 19 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen.


Not at all. The public media explosion does contribute significantly to the problem, however. When the perpetrator is given celebrity status the way these guys are, it makes the idea more appealing to certain individuals. There's a whole side-debate going on regarding the extent to which public media response to these events contributes to the problem and whether this potential celebrity status might be a larger part of the problem.


Fine. Now address the more important part of my response. If it makes things easier, let's also assume that the 1st amendment isn't going away anytime soon either. So given those assumptions, how do you minimize the number of kids killed by such events?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#277 Dec 19 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Yeah, there also wasn't pervasive internet access, and pocket sized cell phones, and world wide instant embedded news media. I'd ask if you understood the point here, but that would be a waste of time.


So cell phones and the internet cause these sorts of mass shootings? That's a great theory, except that while such shootings were much more rare prior to the late 90s, they did happen.


Not at all. The public media explosion does contribute significantly to the problem, however. When the perpetrator is given celebrity status the way these guys are, it makes the idea more appealing to certain individuals. There's a whole side-debate going on regarding the extent to which public media response to these events contributes to the problem and whether this potential celebrity status might be a larger part of the problem.


Fine. Now address the more important part of my response. If it makes things easier, let's also assume that the 1st amendment isn't going away anytime soon either. So given those assumptions, how do you minimize the number of kids killed by such events?


Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#278 Dec 19 2012 at 6:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,786 posts
Deadgye wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Native Americans had hatchets so we couldn't genocide them.


And if the French hadn't helped us then the new Americans would have been genocided by the British, right?

(I like how firefox wanted me to capitalize American and British but was okay with French being lowerclass.)

Fixed for accuracy.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#279 Dec 19 2012 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That'd be because "french" is a cutting technique, i.e. french fries and french cut green beans

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 6:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#280 Dec 19 2012 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.


How on earth is that somewhere in the middle? You've chosen to focus solely on the three things that we can't do much to change and can't ensure will be effective at if we do, while ignoring entirely the argument I've made for removing that law in effect which directly ensures that such shooting events will result in the most deaths possible.

In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.

Our current gun laws with regard to schools basically assumes that no one will ever show up to randomly shoot people and completely removes any ability to defend those on the school grounds when one does. Given that we can't really make that assumption, shouldn't we change that law?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#281 Dec 19 2012 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Like others have said, the real answer lies somewhere in the middle. Some tighter gun ownership restrictions coupled with better mental health care response coupled with better judgement in the media. Two of those can be government regulated / mandated. Attempting to curb gun ownership without treating the root cause (mental illness, because let's face it, you have to be mentally ill to decide to go on a shooting spree and then off yourself) is a futile effort that won't solve a damn thing.


How on earth is that somewhere in the middle? You've chosen to focus solely on the three things that we can't do much to change and can't ensure will be effective at if we do, while ignoring entirely the argument I've made for removing that law in effect which directly ensures that such shooting events will result in the most deaths possible.

In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.

Our current gun laws with regard to schools basically assumes that no one will ever show up to randomly shoot people and completely removes any ability to defend those on the school grounds when one does. Given that we can't really make that assumption, shouldn't we change that law?


And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with. You couldn't possibly be farther from the middle. Also, you're an idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#282 Dec 19 2012 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with.


No. I have acknowledged that those other issues exist, but that they are unlikely to be "fixed" to any degree that would reasonably be expected to prevent future such shootings. Do you agree with my assumptions that we're not going to remove the 1st or 2nd amendments nor magically make everyone mentally healthy anytime in the foreseeable future?

Assuming you do, then those things can't be the entirety of what we might do in response to such events. I've presented something else we could do. Something which would have a tangible and demonstrable effect on the outcomes of such shootings in the future. But you (and others) either just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand without any real argument (or present a limited and contrived one).

It's interesting that so many people are sure that allowing private citizens to legally carry weapons on school grounds (with the school itself defining the policy) is a bad idea, but no one has yet made any real attempt to make an argument for this. I got one person saying that a teacher might snap and shoot a student. But I didn't say "in the classroom right in front of students". I said "on school grounds". Big difference.

If the principle, or assistant principle, or any of a dozen people who work at a school but aren't sitting in a classroom all day had access to a firearm at that school, it's entirely possible that all 20 of those children would be alive today.

Quote:
You couldn't possibly be farther from the middle.


I'm presenting a course of action which addresses both sides of the issue (prevention and mitigation). You are insisting on addressing only one (prevention), and ignoring the other.


Quote:
Also, you're an idiot.


Well that's constructive. How about making an argument about why changing or eliminating the Gun Free School Act to allow some faculty to have firearms on school grounds would either not help in cases of school shootings, or would cause some harm greater than those shootings? You know, like I asked you to do already and you refused to do? If you believe so strongly that I'm wrong, then make that case. If you can't, then perhaps you should reassess your position.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#283 Dec 19 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
And you've chosen to focus on ONE argument that arming more citizens will reduce the number of casualties, a scenario almost nobody in their right mind agrees with.


No. I have acknowledged that those other issues exist, but that they are unlikely to be "fixed" to any degree that would reasonably be expected to prevent future such shootings. Do you agree with my assumptions that we're not going to remove the 1st or 2nd amendments nor magically make everyone mentally healthy anytime in the foreseeable future?


Nobody said any of the options are a magical pill that cures everything. Doing nothing in the face of the lack of a 100% cure is ludicrous, as is producing more of the same type of individual that commits these acts in the first place - armed civilians.

Quote:
I've presented something else we could do. Something which would have a tangible and demonstrable effect on the outcomes of such shootings in the future.


No you haven't. There is no statistically significant data that supports your claim that arming citizens prevents gun violence. There exists, however, mounds of evidence to support the contrary.

Quote:
But you (and others) either just ignore it or dismiss it out of hand without any real argument (or present a limited and contrived one).


The argument has been countered with evidence you choose to ignore. That doesn't make it nonexistent.

Quote:
It's interesting that so many people are sure that allowing private citizens to legally carry weapons on school grounds (with the school itself defining the policy) is a bad idea, but no one has yet made any real attempt to make an argument for this. I got one person saying that a teacher might snap and shoot a student. But I didn't say "in the classroom right in front of students". I said "on school grounds". Big difference.


If your primary goal is to ensure the presence of deadly counter force on school grounds, then dedicated, uniformed school police officer with proper training is sufficient. There is no need for X random citizen to be allowed to possess a firearm in the presence of children because of the ridiculous fallacy that they might be the next hero to stop a mass murder cold in his tracks simply because they have the option of deadly force.

Quote:
If the principle, or assistant principle, or any of a dozen people who work at a school but aren't sitting in a classroom all day had access to a firearm at that school, it's entirely possible that all 20 of those children would be alive today.


See above.


Quote:
If you believe so strongly that I'm wrong, then make that case. If you can't, then perhaps you should reassess your position.


The case has been made. Your inability to comprehend doesn't nullify the evidence to the contrary. In fact, it strengthens it.

Edited, Dec 19th 2012 5:26pm by gbaji [/quote]
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#284 Dec 19 2012 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,715 posts
From the article I quoted above:

Quote:
More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#285 Dec 19 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
BD, I already responded to the incredibly biased Mother Jones article.

Despite all their insistence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings, you know what one factor is consistent in nearly all (actually, "all" I think) cases where an armed civilian (other than the shooter) is present? They don't become mass shootings. The article even attempts to use this fact to "prove" that armed civilians don't matter because in not one mass shooting event was another armed civilian available to attempt to prevent it.

Which a rational person would take as "mounds of evidence" that the presence of other armed civilians prevents shooting events from becoming mass shooting events. The problem with the MJ logic is that we can't ever know how many armed civilians prevented mass shootings because when they do, they don't become mass shootings. You can't use that as evidence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings. If anything, it serves as strong evidence that they do.


The MJ article's logic is like arguing that a healthy diet and regular exercise wont help prevent you from becoming obese because in a case study of obese people, not one person in the study had a healthy diet and exercised regularly. Yeah. It's that dumb. It really is. The absence of armed civilians at mass shootings somehow proves that the presence of armed civilians doesn't prevent mass shootings? Seriously, think it through.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#286 Dec 19 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Well look at that. Apparently, people don't like to see facts and links, so they sub-defaulted my post where I provided exactly the evidence which counters the Mother Jones claim. Kinda ironic that people demand facts and citations, but then don't like it when those things don't support their own positions.

Here's the list of shootings interrupted by armed civilians again. And here's the article about the correlation between shootings and "gun free" zones.

I know that this is an emotional issue, but we really should approach it by looking at actual facts and not intentionally manipulated statistics. Armed civilians absolutely do prevent shootings from being worse than they should be. They are arguably the only thing that does once a shooting has started. So, if you acknowledge that we can't 100% prevent shootings from happening, why on earth shouldn't we also act to minimize the damage that occurs when/if they do?


It's like you're insisting that we should not have air bags in cars, but just should "teach people to be better drivers". Yes. We should do that. But it might also be a good idea to put airbags in cars.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#287 Dec 19 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hatchets are just as efficient as guns for killing people.

But not for killing skeletons. If we just armed schools with skeletons, all the hatchet mass murderers would be thwarted.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#288 Dec 19 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Despite all their insistence that armed civilians don't prevent mass shootings, you know what one factor is consistent in nearly all (actually, "all" I think) cases where an armed civilian (other than the shooter) is present? They don't become mass shootings

So, it's your theory that no one has ever been killed in a shooting involving 2 or more victims when that person has had a firearm? I just want to be clear on what it'll take seven seconds of research to refute. Can you concisely state what you "assume" is true for us? Nothing overly complex, but what sort of number you accept as a "mass" shooting. If the victims have to die or just get shot, that sort of thing. Also what you mean by civilian. If someone was, oh I don't know, shot in Pakistan while armed working for DoD as a civilian...does that count? Are armed security guards civilians?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#289 Dec 19 2012 at 9:49 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The American Indian story absolutely was deliberate and systematic.


Sure, but it wasn't a deliberate and systematic extermination. Conversion? Sure. Persecution? OK. Extermination? In some cases, but certainly not systematically.

When I think of genocide, I think of Hitler or Rwanda ca. 1994. What the American population did to Native Americans is ugly and disturbing in some cases, but I still wouldn't call it genocide.



Many populations were decimated, to the point where they were no longer viable. That's what genocide is.

For all Hitler's efforts, for all the godawful evil sh*t that went down in Rwanda, there are still viable populations of Jews left, even in Europe. There are still Hutus.

But see it your way, I guess.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#290 Dec 19 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That'd be because "french" is a cutting technique, i.e. french fries and french cut green beans




Also see: kissing.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#291 Dec 19 2012 at 9:53 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Samira wrote:
For all Hitler's efforts, for all the godawful evil sh*t that went down in Rwanda, there are still viable populations of Jews left, even in Europe. There are still Hutus.


There are still native americans.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#292 Dec 19 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,899 posts
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#293 Dec 19 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
Samira wrote:
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

Nah, all Indians are the same.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#294 Dec 20 2012 at 4:27 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,143 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Samira wrote:
Yes, some. Many tribes, whole nations, are no longer around.

Nah, all Indians are the same.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty damned sure that the Apache nation (or what is left of it) was never famous for its Biryani.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#295 Dec 20 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Default
***
1,087 posts
Quote:
Well look at that. Apparently, people don't like to see facts and links, so they sub-defaulted my post where I provided exactly the evidence which counters the Mother Jones claim. Kinda ironic that people demand facts and citations, but then don't like it when those things don't support their own positions.


I know you're enough of a realist to expect nothing different here, it's why I dont post often.

The uncomfortable truths are that Guns are just a tool & can be used for good or evil (just like dynamite, a point I tried to inject with my Bath massacre quote),
and Real World problems dont often respond well to emotionally based feel-good solutions. Even if we could craft and pass perfect gun control legislation, that would still leave guns in the same position as most illegal drugs are now.....easy to obtain & widely abused (by criminals).
And remember, a lot of these drugs have NO medicinal purpose and are not even manufactured by drug companies.

If its about saving lives, we would do better to outlaw ladders, stairs, kitchens & baths........electrical power, automobiles etc ad nauseum.

People who favor increased gun control just havn't accepted the fact that the police (& laws) cant protect us from certain things & never will, self reliant people want to retain this ability & others want to stamp their feet and demand that it STOP !!!
There is also a class issue at work here in that no matter what the laws are, there will always be people "At the Top" who "deserve" or "need" extra protection....
- from the POTUS down to celebrities, pop-stars, etc this kinda presents a problem for the whole " all men are created equal" & "equal justice under the law" concept.

Our society is ill & these rampages are but a symptom.

ps Many indigenous people of the Americas were practicing Slavery & Genocide before the Euro's came...nothing was done to them that they hadnt done to others.

____________________________
[99WAR,99BLM,99DRK,99BST,99PLD,99MNK,99SMN75RDM49THF45NIN/WHM/DNC
/SAM,,~] Galka

BASTOK:10 SKY: O SEA: O DYNAMIS: O
SIREN srvr
YARP !!!
#296 Dec 20 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Terrifyingspeed wrote:
The uncomfortable truths are that Guns are just a tool & can be used for good or evil

And we regulate/restrict "tools" all the time so to minimize the amount of evil they can cause.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Dec 20 2012 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
gbaji wrote:
In the middle would be saying that we should do something with those other three so as to reduce the danger of a shooter showing up at a school with firearms intent on killing as many people as possible, but we should *also* do something to minimize the number of casualties when/if that shooter does show up. Given that we can't possibly make sufficient changes to ensure that the situation wont occur, it's somewhat insane to refuse to take a pretty easy and logical step to minimize that harm.


Better mental health care, better security, better restrictions on dangerous weapons. Attack it at all angles, there's something for everyone, good chance for success. Now, Lord knows you aren't going to have an armed security guard (or anyone with a 'self-defense' gun for that matter) who isn't "properly trained" at a school. Mental health care isn't cheap, and someone has to enforce gun restrictions.

In the meantime I'm going to put on my swim trunks and do a cannonball of the fiscal cliff. There's water at the bottom right?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#298 Dec 20 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm imaging an immigration argument where the usual suspects making the "We can't get rid of every gun and they'll just use swords and crossbow bombs" argument say "We can't deport every illegal immigrant so let's just give up." and "Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*

You know, rather than, "We can't just deport every illegal immigrant but we can strengthen border security to decrease the flow of immigrants and double our efforts to locate and deport the most problematic types of immigrants who pose the greatest threats..."

* I'm sure there's people on the pro-immigration side who've said this since dopey logic exists across the spectrum.

Edited, Dec 20th 2012 11:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#299 Dec 20 2012 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Terrifyingspeed wrote:

If its about saving lives, we would do better to outlaw ladders, stairs, kitchens & baths........electrical power, automobiles etc ad nauseum.
These things are all inherently different than guns. They're purpose is not to stop a beating heart. If all these items were always used properly and without incident they would cause no deaths. Guns on the other hand if used properly will cause death or injury - that's what it's designed to do.
Quote:
People who favor increased gun control just havn't accepted the fact that the police (& laws) cant protect us from certain things & never will, self reliant people want to retain this ability & others want to stamp their feet and demand that it STOP !!!
I am for increased gun control and I accept the fact that the police and laws can't protect me from certain thing - most things really. So you're flat out wrong on that statement.
Quote:

Our society is ill & these rampages are but a symptom.
Not really. There are over 300 million people in this country. A handful - less than 100, less than one-one hundreth of one percent go on killing sprees in a year. It's not like it's pervasive. I'm not sure how you define an ill society, but the largest percentage of people in this country are not homicidal maniacs, or even hardened criminals.
Quote:
ps Many indigenous people of the Americas were practicing Slavery & Genocide before the Euro's came...nothing was done to them that they hadnt done to others.
Cite?
____________________________
LOOK here.
#300 Dec 20 2012 at 11:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*


How about the obvious "you can't have armed guards everywhere, so the mass murderer guy will just choose the softest target he can?"

Or is that one no fun? Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#301 Dec 20 2012 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,529 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm imaging an immigration argument where the usual suspects making the "We can't get rid of every gun and they'll just use swords and crossbow bombs" argument say "We can't deport every illegal immigrant so let's just give up." and "Anyone who really wants to sneak in can always find a way so why bother with security..."*

You know, rather than, "We can't just deport every illegal immigrant but we can strengthen border security to decrease the flow of immigrants and double our efforts to locate and deport the most problematic types of immigrants who pose the greatest threats..."

It's that common reaction, when a problem is too frustratingly complex to solve, people just throw their hands in the air and say "fuck it, it can't be solved." Incremental changes to ameliorate problems aren't satisfying and become unacceptable because they aren't perfect.


Edited, Dec 20th 2012 11:56am by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (51)