2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Coconut-kid on December 02, 2015, 10:26:36 AM
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/authorities-respond-report-shooting-san-bernardino-california-n472976
-
Surprised by the complete lack of facts and information for this shooting.
-
NBC is worthless. Just like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC....
Fox News is better IMHO:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/02/as-many-as-20-shot-police-in-standoff-in-san-bernardino-calif/
-
Prayers for the victims and their families first. More incidents to play into the final year agenda and expect more in 2016.
-
They showed a casing on Fox. looks like 308 Win
of course Obummer had to open his mouth already...
-
No details, they don't know who the shooters are , or what they are. That doesn't seem to stop Hillary Clinton from making a statement against the Second Amendment.
In a state that has completely taken away the peoples' ability to defend themselves, they're going to use this attack to promote gun control.
Prayers go out to the victims and their families.
-
No details, they don't know who the shooters are , or what they are. That doesn't seem to stop Hillary Clinton from making a statement against the Second Amendment.
In a state that has completely taken away the peoples' ability to defend themselves, they're going to use this attack to promote gun control.
Prayers go out to the victims and their families.
Both articles mention "body armor" and "tactical gear". Your plate carrier is next on their agenda!
That aside, I hope authorities find the suspects soon...
-
Waiting to hear which federal agents lost their guns in CA ... seems to be how CA criminals are getting their guns these days!
-
(http://i.imgur.com/uIBKvyg.jpg)
-
I've seen some moronic tweets that this shooting happened near a Planned Parenthood clinic. Yeah, only about a mile away is now considered near.
Now watch as the political left go into anti-gun mode and call for bans.
-
:wtf:
Getting pissed at all this shit already!
When do we get to protect our selves?
Here we go again with gun grabs....
-
Listening to the scanner.
Supposedly there was mention of "arabic", but too early to confirm or start any rumors.
-
UPDATE:
SBPD currently sweeping parking structure believed to be housing additional subjects.
-
They showed a casing on Fox. looks like 308 Win
of course Obummer had to open his mouth already...
fHeard on fox news
There may be 3 or up suspects, that's more than, or up more than 3.
3 or up, meaning a greater number than 3.
Not 2
Not one..
And not three as it is up more , or more than 3.
We just don't know !!!![/b] :crazy:
OMFreakin G. :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake:
SHUT THE FRICK UP ALREADY.
"Rumour" has it that it was a gathering for C &C or Gov employees.
How ironic.
Lets talk about how these folks were unable to protect themselves. :grrr:
Prayers out
-
scanners talking about a few IED's
-
:wacko:
-
preaching to the choir here but these "mass shootings" always takes place where there are unarmed people and what do we do as a society? Scream MOAR gun control. Its like going full bore with a jet ski down Niagara Falls. We're going the wrong way!
We need to see this as a deterrent
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3kvq1CIX01qzhiqwo1_1280.png)
-
they are detonating a device found.
-
More reports of 'arabic' coming from boots on the ground....perhaps this is why they are not calling this terrorism yet.
If it was a white guy, you bet your ass DOMESTIC TERRORIST would be all over the screen.
-
Women involved. Tac gear. Explosives.
I'm calling terrorist sleeper cell.
-
syed Farook.was claimed to be 1 of the shooters.so I googled his name, there's a pic and some information about him, he seemed to have a pretty good life with wife and child, and bought a home.take a look you be the judge.(sleeper cell??)
-
syed Farook.was claimed to be 1 of the shooters.so I googled his name, there's a pic and some information about him, he seemed to have a pretty good life with wife and child, and bought a home.take a look you be the judge.(sleeper cell??)
.
"WORKPLACE VIOLENCE" - Barry Soetoro
-
.
-
here we go....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/opinions/opinion-roundup-gun-control-2015/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/opinions/opinion-roundup-gun-control-2015/index.html)
-
.
"WORKPLACE VIOLENCE" - Barry Soetoro
WORK PLACE VIOLENCE..how the hell do you convince 2 friends to go out and kill people,(co-workers)..
-
.
-
One ID's as a Syed Farook, US citizen, another as Tayyeep bin Ardogan, Qatari citizen. No info yet on the woman.
Neighbor said he saw suspicious activity but did not say anything for fear of "profiling". I am sure the dead feel better knowing he did not profile the muzz getting ready.
-
One ID's as a Syed Farook, US citizen, another as Tayyeep bin Ardogan, Qatari citizen. No info yet on the woman.
Neighbor said he saw suspicious activity but did not say anything for fear of "profiling". I am sure the dead feel better knowing he did not profile the muzz getting ready.
PC strikes again.
-
all this crap about gun control is pissing me off.
All these people who want more control over the very tools that defend us want us all to be sheep and cower from bad guys while big govt. tries to rescue us :grrr:
They couldn't save the thousands that were lost on 11 Sept.
Acknowledge that and empower your citizens!
-
.
-
Fuck Political Correctness.
(Umbrage not directed at you, brother Heavies.)
Look up the history of Political Correctness.
In my opinion, Political Correctness is a self-imposed restriction on one's own Freedom of Speech.
It's a form of thought control.
First, you are conditioned to not say it.
Next, you are taught to shame and shun anyone who does say it which assists in the conditioning of others.
Lastly, all that negative reinforcement conditions you to control your mind so you no longer think it.
-
.
-
...insidious. >:(
It's a form of thought control.
First, you are conditioned to not say it.
Next, you are taught to shame and shun anyone who does say it which assists in the conditioning of others.
Lastly, all that negative reinforcement conditions you to control your mind so you no longer think it.
I believe that is called the room of monkeys with the ladder and the banana at the top. Great analogy look it up if you don't know. We'll sorta my monkey brain just popped up with it when reading. Lol why whuwhwu eek eek! Haha
-
You never hear of mass shootings at shooting ranges or police stations.
These events are sad to see. Thoughts and prayers go out to the families.
Reflecting if I was in the situation, I can either run or throw something at attackers. Not much of an option as far as I'm concerned. Shooting back, what a novel idea.
1A/2A beatings continue.
-
You never hear of mass shootings at shooting ranges or police stations.
These events are sad to see. Thoughts and prayers go out to the families.
Reflecting if I was in the situation, I can either run or throw something at attackers. Not much of an option as far as I'm concerned. Shooting back, what a novel idea.
1A/2A beatings continue.
Or shoot them with pepper spray and hope they aren't one of those 10%ers who are immune.
Personally, I prefer bear spray
-
2 of the perps are dead, but the silence as to their identities in the Main Stream Media is deafening.
*** Please remain calm and continue with your usual activities... media controls are working as intended. ***
Perhaps the media is finally learning their lesson and not glorifying the shooters so as to reduce copycats?
-
I believe that is called the room of monkeys with the ladder and the banana at the top. Great analogy look it up if you don't know. We'll sorta my monkey brain just popped up with it when reading. Lol why whuwhwu eek eek! Haha
I believe that was an actual experiment, not an analogy
EDIT: Apparently it is in question whether this was an actual study or not. It does seem like the analogy may have been modified some but based of an actual study that was done.
-
WORK PLACE VIOLENCE..how the hell do you convince 2 friends to go out and kill people,(co-workers)..
Workplace violence rarely has an accomplice and most active shooters are lone individuals as well. This combined with the fact that it doesn't appear to be a spontaneous act of violence certainly is consistent with a terrorism narrative.
Rhetorical question though, if it was some white people, would we all still be concluding it was terrorism?
I think that with all the discussion of terrorism, no one seems to clearly first define what is considered terrorism. On could easily argue that most active shooters are terrorizing others, but do we consider them terrorist? Is it the intent or is it the method or is it the ideology? Was sandy hook a terrorist incident?
-
"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."
I believe this was a case of ideological terrorism of the abuquackbar variety.
-
Perhaps the media is finally learning their lesson and not glorifying the shooters so as to reduce copycats?
No
-
No
The media is whining about why they must cover news of "gun violence" again and again.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/opinions/baldwin-san-bernardino-shooting/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/opinions/baldwin-san-bernardino-shooting/index.html)
while our President knee jerks for more gun control :grrr:
We do have a a problem here in America...we cater to the criminals by disarming law abiding citizens - making us jump through hoops, get fingerprinted every time we apply for a permit to exercise our 2A rights, scrutinized as if WE are the criminals.
We created an environment conducive to these attacks, and when they do attack there are more cries for bigger govt. intervention.
-
and here we go pointing fingers at irrelevancy
(https://images.scribblelive.com/2015/12/3/4e195a5a-9d2b-480a-ae11-e6ea58de05c9_800.jpg)
and instead of condemning the suspects the all too typical "I don't know why they would do this....I'm in shock" bullshit and calling this an act of "gun violence"... Murder is a more accurate term and there are laws against murder.
Few people own up to any family honor today. Instead of "I'm sorry my relative did this" The blame is on mental health, guns, knives, other people, the govt. etc.
http://news.yahoo.com/san-bernardino-shooting-what-we-know-so-far-live-updates-132106754.html# (http://news.yahoo.com/san-bernardino-shooting-what-we-know-so-far-live-updates-132106754.html#)
"Alleged gunman's brother-in-law 'in shock'
At a press conference in Anaheim, Calif., Farhad Khan, Farook's brother-in-law, condemned the shootings.
"I have no idea why he would do something like this," Khan said. "I'm in shock."
The briefing was hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation's largest Muslim advocacy group advocacy organization, which also condemned the gun violence in San Bernardino."
-
.
-
what do you think is going through the minds of the victims during the shooting?
"we should get tougher gun legislation."
or
"I wish I had a gun to defend myself."
probobly the latter.
-
what do you think is going through the minds of the victims during the shooting?
"we should get tougher gun legislation."
or
"I wish I had a gun to defend myself."
probobly the latter.
Perhaps these victims were thinking "this is just a drill."
Sometime ago, another forum member posted a picture of an informational letter on the wall at Queens West.
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13303.0
-
Workplace violence rarely has an accomplice and most active shooters are lone individuals as well. This combined with the fact that it doesn't appear to be a spontaneous act of violence certainly is consistent with a terrorism narrative.
Rhetorical question though, if it was some white people, would we all still be concluding it was racism?
I think that with all the discussion of terrorism, no one seems to clearly first define what is considered terrorism. On could easily argue that most active shooters are terrorizing others, but do we consider them terrorist? Is it the intent or is it the method or is it the ideology? Was sandy hook a terrorist incident?
99% of the answers to the questions you ask here are available for FREE on the Internet. Why do the vast majority of your posts involve you asking questions that are easy to answer if you know how to look for it?
I give up. When you aren't contradicting and arguing, you're asking questions you are too lazy to look up yourself.
Maybe one day you'll be able to contribute more than you take from this forum, but today is not that day.
:stopjack:
-
Why do the vast majority of your posts involve you asking questions that are easy to answer if you know how to look for it?
Don't feed the troll.
When this clown started in on all the gun control threads and then claimed he did not know who John Lott was, the troll alarm went off. A fake is not so hard to spot when they screw up like that.
-
FBI treats San Bernardino attacks as a possible terrorism case
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-treats-san-bernardino-attack-as-possible-terrorism-case/ar-AAfYDHC?li=BBnb7Kz
-
(http://i.imgur.com/gkdHyzT.jpg)
-
It's looking more and more like a "lone-wolf" scenario with influences from overseas.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/v68pm.jpg)
Literally what the guy said word for word :shake:
Interview below:
https://youtu.be/ltigmgzV1LA
-
Here's some info about the motives.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html
-
Here's some info about the motives.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3344350/Devout-Muslim-citizen-Saudi-wife-living-American-Dream-identified-heavily-armed-duo-burst-office-holiday-party-slaughtered-14-leaving-baby-mother.html
Teased about his muslim beard? Give me a F@$%ing break.
-
Another thing I am pissed about with all this talk about gun control, why is there no talk about PIPE BOMB CONTROL? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Let's face it, if one of those pipe bombs had gone off it would have done a hell of a lot more damage and carnage than the 14 killed and 21 wounded that those 2 maniacs did with 2 AR's and 2 handguns.
As much as gun control makes absolutely no sense at all, at the very least I would be for PIPE BOMB CONTROL laws to be passed. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
-
Another thing I am pissed about with all this talk about gun control, why is there no talk about PIPE BOMB CONTROL? :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Let's face it, if one of those pipe bombs had gone off it would have done a hell of a lot more damage and carnage than the 14 killed and 21 wounded that those 2 maniacs did with 2 AR's and 2 handguns.
As much as gun control makes absolutely no sense at all, at the very least I would be for PIPE BOMB CONTROL laws to be passed. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
they should have serial numbers on pipes
-
they should have serial numbers on pipes
I am sure that makes sense to some progressive out there....
-
You should have to have a background check to shop at a hardware store...
-
You should have to have a background check to shop at a hardware store...
or buy a car, shop for poisons at any store including cleaners and anti-freeze, buy bats and archery equipment at Sports Authority, shop at any hardware/houseware aisle in any store (Walmart, Kmart, Long's, 7-11,...), purchase gasoline or charcoal lighter fluid, knives especially long butcher knives, ...
-
or buy a car, shop for poisons at any store including cleaners and anti-freeze, buy bats and archery equipment at Sports Authority, shop at any hardware/houseware aisle in any store (Walmart, Kmart, Long's, 7-11,...), purchase gasoline or charcoal lighter fluid, knives especially long butcher knives, ...
Lets not forget that time they wanted to regulate pressure cookers. :wacko:
-
Perhaps these victims were thinking "this is just a drill."
Sometime ago, another forum member posted a picture of an informational letter on the wall at Queens West.
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=13303.0
That notice was for an active shooter exercise that took place before the ED opened for business....
-
No
I didn't think so either, but I can hope can't I?
-
99% of the answers to the questions you ask here are available for FREE on the Internet. Why do the vast majority of your posts involve you asking questions that are easy to answer if you know how to look for it?
I give up. When you aren't contradicting and arguing, you're asking questions you are too lazy to look up yourself.
Maybe one day you'll be able to contribute more than you take from this forum, but today is not that day.
:stopjack:
Apparently you don't understand what a rhetorical question is.
The questions I asked were not questions with some easy yes or no answer one can google. They were questions designed to make you think, to provoke a discussion.
Maybe I need to spell things out for you instead? Ok, here is goes. The word terrorism is used by the government, by the media, and by ordinary folks yet there is not always a universal definition. When people discuss a topic but all define it differently you have confusion of the topic. Hence I ask the question so as to hear what people others consider terrorism and provide examples as context to discuss it.
-
Don't feed the troll.
When this clown started in on all the gun control threads and then claimed he did not know who John Lott was, the troll alarm went off. A fake is not so hard to spot when they screw up like that.
Knowledge of John Lott proves nothing. Might as well be that you are trolling me.
-
Apparently you don't understand what a rhetorical question is.
The questions I asked were not questions with some easy yes or no answer one can google. They were questions designed to make you think, to provoke a discussion.
Maybe I need to spell things out for you instead? Ok, here is goes. The word terrorism is used by the government, by the media, and by ordinary folks yet there is not always a universal definition. When people discuss a topic but all define it differently you have confusion of the topic. Hence I ask the question so as to hear what people others consider terrorism and provide examples as context to discuss it.
Rhetorical questions are not effective if your goal is to "provoke discussion."
Maybe you need to look up the definition of "rhetorical question" to see why that's so. :geekdanc:
-
(http://i.imgur.com/AESxsmr.jpg)
-
CNN invented new micro bullets that were used in California....sub millimeter.
-
CNN invented new micro bullets that were used in California....sub millimeter.
and "ballistics" were found in the home according to the title
-
Wonder what the "ballistics" would be on a .223mm round...
-
Wonder what the "ballistics" would be on a .223mm round...
mag capacity would be AWESOME
-
.
-
Rhetorical questions are not effective if your goal is to "provoke discussion."
Maybe you need to look up the definition of "rhetorical question" to see why that's so. :geekdanc:
Part of it was rhetorical, and part of it was to illicit discussion.
Regardless, obviously none of it was as you suggested, something I should have just googled.
-
Wonder what the "ballistics" would be on a .223mm round...
Maybe the same as a tattoo needle.
-
Enjoy, boys and girls.....
https://youtu.be/2VcLBAliA5o
-
Enjoy, boys and girls.....
https://youtu.be/2VcLBAliA5o
Hard to confirm if the multiple shots being fired are from a pistol or rifle at the 40 second mark, but assuming that multiple police officers engaged the vehicle at one time, I'm going to go out on a whim and say it was the terrorists firing their rifle.
That being said, I count more than 20 rounds being fired in less than 10 seconds from the same rifle/pistol.
If that is the case, aren't California rifles restricted to 10 rounds via a fixed magazine, as anything more than 10 rounds is defined as high capacity? If true, that would mean the individuals broke the law and altered a legally firearm to increase it's capacity. And aren't pistol magazines restricted to 10 rounds?
Maybe the didn't get the memo that doing that is illegal.
Perfect example of how firearm laws are working to deter criminals and terrorists from breaking the law in California....I feel so much safer knowing that they listen to the rules just like we do :crazy:
-
why do young dudes hold their cameras straight up and down but hold their pistols sideways? :rofl:
-
It was reported that both rifles were illegally modded.
Kinda ironic cause they were both reportedly bought legal in Kommiefornia ....bullet buttons later removed.
Damn criminals. Don't they know it's against the law ?
-
It was reported that both rifles were illegally modded.
Kinda ironic cause they were both reportedly bought legal in Kommiefornia ....bullet buttons later removed.
Damn criminals. Don't they know it's against the law ?
Wait a minute...you mean to tell me that the terrorists broke the law and removed the bullet buttons that are 100% terrorist/criminal proof, guaranteed to keep everyone safe?!
We obviously need more gun control for people like this to follow!
-
.
-
Although I don't find the situation anything to laugh about this video made my day. Shows the state of the world we live in when someone finds it exciting and needs to record it.
In some instances, I'm glad this is the world we live in.
It's hard to deny what really happened when there is evidence, so people trying to claim that 'gun control works' can get this shoved up their ass, especially when it goes to show that they clearly violated the gun control that should have prevented this in the first place.
-
.
-
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:
On Sunday, December 6th at 8:00PM EST, President Obama will address the nation from the Oval Office about the steps
our government is taking to fulfill his highest priority: keeping the American people safe. The President will provide an update
on the ongoing investigation into the tragic attack in San Bernardino. The President will also discuss the broader threat of
terrorism, including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it. He will reiterate his firm conviction
that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values – our unwavering commitment to justice,
equality and freedom – to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology.
Plenty of time to get those drinking game rules worked out ... Number of times he says:
Common Sense
Gun Violence
Gun Laws
Assault Weapon
Guns/Firearms
Radical Islamic Extremists
Religion of Peace
etc ...
-
You'll often hear from the liberal shitheads that if we banned guns, we'd cut down on gun deaths, etc. I say we use their own logic against them. Ask a liberal that's running their mouth about banning guns if we should follow their logic with regards to Muslims. For example, libs believe no guns equals a lot less gun violence, right? Well, then isn't it logical to think that zero or very few Muslims in America equals to a lot less Muslim jihadi violence in America? So, if we want to decrease or eliminate Islamic terrorism, then we need to ban those that practice Islam, right?
-
If you want to get drunk and puke (just watching would do it for me):
Plenty of time to get those drinking game rules worked out ... Number of times he says:
I
Me
My
Never heard the bastard say a complete sentence and do not intend to start now. I successfully shut out Clintoon for eight years, am closing in on the same record with this abject joke.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/jM0H5IS.jpg)
-
https://youtu.be/iqqOM8eZ7vs
-
I don’t trust the word of a guy who launched his campaign in the living room of a terrorist to judge innocent Americans on a watch list.
-
Hard to confirm if the multiple shots being fired are from a pistol or rifle at the 40 second mark, but assuming that multiple police officers engaged the vehicle at one time, I'm going to go out on a whim and say it was the terrorists firing their rifle.
That being said, I count more than 20 rounds being fired in less than 10 seconds from the same rifle/pistol.
If that is the case, aren't California rifles restricted to 10 rounds via a fixed magazine, as anything more than 10 rounds is defined as high capacity? If true, that would mean the individuals broke the law and altered a legally firearm to increase it's capacity. And aren't pistol magazines restricted to 10 rounds?
Maybe the didn't get the memo that doing that is illegal.
Perfect example of how firearm laws are working to deter criminals and terrorists from breaking the law in California....I feel so much safer knowing that they listen to the rules just like we do :crazy:
In one of the interviews the police chief said they found 4 "high capacity" magazines at the shooting scene.
-
In one of the interviews the police chief said they found 4 "high capacity" magazines at the shooting scene.
they're banned in California - how did the criminals skirt the law? There must be a looperholey.
We need to outlaw criminals - because there is no law that outlaws them - we need it in the books.
(http://cdn.crowdfundinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Tommy-Boy-Fancy-Guarantee.png)
-
https://youtu.be/TjpdT2SmbRU
-
It was reported that both rifles were illegally modded.
Kinda ironic cause they were both reportedly bought legal in Kommiefornia ....bullet buttons later removed.
Damn criminals. Don't they know it's against the law ?
Double edged sword there. That might just cause them to make the argument that the bullet button is ineffective and thus put something more restrictive in place.
-
Double edged sword there. That might just cause them to make the argument that the bullet button is ineffective and thus put something more restrictive in place.
You didn't bother to research the shooting, did you?
Oh, crap! I forgot who I was addressing!!
The rifles were purchased legally, but not by the shooters (straw purchase).
The bullet buttons allowed quicker changes of the 30 rd mags, which are illegal unless dated before the ban was enacted. That means that even with a more "restrictive" mag release, they had mags that were 3 times the legal capacity, reducing the use of the bullet button to 1/3 the number of times required if using 10rd mags.
The rifles were modified to full auto.
So, assuming the information I have is correct (it changes periodically), these shooters were breaking gun law after gun law. If you think making another, more restrictive law would have prevented it, you are naive. Making a receiver unable to become full-auto means they will find a pre-law rifle, mill it to bypass the design, etc.
No law can prevent criminals from bypassing them.
-
You didn't bother to research the shooting, did you?
Oh, crap! I forgot who I was addressing!!
The rifles were purchased legally, but not by the shooters (straw purchase).
The bullet buttons allowed quicker changes of the 30 rd mags, which are illegal unless dated before the ban was enacted. That means that even with a more "restrictive" mag release, they had mags that were 3 times the legal capacity, reducing the use of the bullet button to 1/3 the number of times required if using 10rd mags.
The rifles were modified to full auto.
So, assuming the information I have is correct (it changes periodically), these shooters were breaking gun law after gun law. If you think making another, more restrictive law would have prevented it, you are naive. Making a receiver unable to become full-auto means they will find a pre-law rifle, mill it to bypass the design, etc.
No law can prevent criminals from bypassing them.
Maybe you don't understand what a double edged sword means in the context of a debate. It refers to an argument or piece of data that can be used for your side but can also be used against your side.
Antis can and will use that argument to suggest more gun control whether you think it makes sense or not.
Take regulation of any kind. You can point and say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we should get rid of them" while they can say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we need new/more regulations"
All your counter points can really just end up being ammo to use against you. They can apply the same logic and just reverse the argument by saying "we let people have some guns but that didn't work so obviously letting people have guns doesn't work at all"
The crux of the problem is a flaw in your logic. You believe that because A regulation failed that necessarily all regulations will fail. A failure of a regulation does not invalidate the process of regulation altogether. Thus, if a regulation fails you have two possible roads to consider, more regulation or less regulation and this is where the double edged sword comes into play.
-
Maybe you don't understand what a double edged sword means in the context of a debate. It refers to an argument or piece of data that can be used for your side but can also be used against your side.
Antis can and will use that argument to suggest more gun control whether you think it makes sense or not.
Take regulation of any kind. You can point and say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we should get rid of them" while they can say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we need new/more regulations"
All your counter points can really just end up being ammo to use against you. They can apply the same logic and just reverse the argument by saying "we let people have some guns but that didn't work so obviously letting people have guns doesn't work at all"
The crux of the problem is a flaw in your logic. You believe that because A regulation failed that necessarily all regulations will fail. A failure of a regulation does not invalidate the process of regulation altogether. Thus, if a regulation fails you have two possible roads to consider, more regulation or less regulation and this is where the double edged sword comes into play.
OR you have to consider whatever assumptions/thinking that lead to those regulations is wrong.
-
Maybe you don't understand what a double edged sword means in the context of a debate. It refers to an argument or piece of data that can be used for your side but can also be used against your side.
Antis can and will use that argument to suggest more gun control whether you think it makes sense or not.
Take regulation of any kind. You can point and say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we should get rid of them" while they can say "look at that, regulations didn't work, we need new/more regulations"
All your counter points can really just end up being ammo to use against you. They can apply the same logic and just reverse the argument by saying "we let people have some guns but that didn't work so obviously letting people have guns doesn't work at all"
The crux of the problem is a flaw in your logic. You believe that because A regulation failed that necessarily all regulations will fail. A failure of a regulation does not invalidate the process of regulation altogether. Thus, if a regulation fails you have two possible roads to consider, more regulation or less regulation and this is where the double edged sword comes into play.
There is a reason the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire. There was no data to demonstrate the ban made any difference whatsoever in violence or deaths by the guns affected by the ban.
This shows that sometimes the Congress gets it right. They tried to enact controls, evaluated the results, and decided to discontinue the controls.
When you do nothing, and the results are the same as doing more than nothing, it's obvious doing more than nothing is a waste of resources.
Had there been a minor improvement in the statistics, then more control would have been enacted. If a little gets a little, then more will get us more. Since that wasn't the case, it was impossible to justify continuing the controls, much less additional controls.
Same for this situation. If the California rules are not stopping criminals from doing what these terrorists did, just like having no laws would have done, then there is no justification for doing more.
More laws will only affect the law abiding -- the same people following today's laws. New laws would be just as ineffective controlling criminals.
The conclusion is inescapable. There's no evidence existing laws prevented anything, now or in the past. There's no double-edged sword if the people considering more legislation have half a brain.
What you still refuse to consider is these people are not going to agree with anything that avoids gun control. They have an agenda. They are not interested in actual solutions short of an all out ban. Worrying about giving therm ammunition is a waste of energy, since they really don't need ammunition to push their agenda.
-
I coined the term "hoplophobia" in 1962 in response to a perceived need for a word to describe a mental aberration consisting of an
unreasoning terror of gadgetry, specifically, weapons. The most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments
possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user. This is not a reasoned position, but when you point this out to a hoplophobe
he is not impressed because his is an unreasonable position. To convince a man that he is not making sense is not to change his
viewpoint but rather to make an enemy. Thus hoplophobia is a useful word, but as with all words, it should be used correctly.
American firearms expert and marine colonel Jeff Cooper, who coined the word in 1962
-
Great quote MauiD !
EEF, you missed the point. ( MauiD hit it though )
A crim is gonna be a crim.
No law can prevent criminals from bypassing them.
In these cases they only put us law abiding citizens in the hole.
-
A little dated, but still pertinent. I hadn't heard this story for some reason.
Concealed Carry Permit Holder Stops Gunman During Attempted Mass Shooting
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/30/concealed-carry-permit-holder-stops-gunman-during-mass-shooting/
-
There is a reason the 2004 Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire. There was no data to demonstrate the ban made any difference whatsoever in violence or deaths by the guns affected by the ban.
This shows that sometimes the Congress gets it right. They tried to enact controls, evaluated the results, and decided to discontinue the controls.
When you do nothing, and the results are the same as doing more than nothing, it's obvious doing more than nothing is a waste of resources.
Had there been a minor improvement in the statistics, then more control would have been enacted. If a little gets a little, then more will get us more. Since that wasn't the case, it was impossible to justify continuing the controls, much less additional controls.
Same for this situation. If the California rules are not stopping criminals from doing what these terrorists did, just like having no laws would have done, then there is no justification for doing more.
More laws will only affect the law abiding -- the same people following today's laws. New laws would be just as ineffective controlling criminals.
The conclusion is inescapable. There's no evidence existing laws prevented anything, now or in the past. There's no double-edged sword if the people considering more legislation have half a brain.
What you still refuse to consider is these people are not going to agree with anything that avoids gun control. They have an agenda. They are not interested in actual solutions short of an all out ban. Worrying about giving therm ammunition is a waste of energy, since they really don't need ammunition to push their agenda.
While you are right about the studies showing no significant effect of the assault weapons ban, that isn't the only reason it wasn't renewed. Had democrats controlled congress when it was set to expire you might have seen a different result.
You are still looking at this too simply and are not considering all the possibilities. You are only considering the possible conclusion you like. Consider other possibilities, for example, maybe the assault weapons ban was not in place long enough to have an effect, maybe it wasn't enforced strongly enough, or maybe it needed to be done differently. It is still a double edged sword because someone who is anti gun rights can use the same fact (gun control didn't work) but arrive at an opposite conclusion.
Lets say you we the first to invent a helmet for bicyclists and that the government mandated its use for all cyclists but studies showed it had no effect on saving lives. It could be that helmets don't protect bicyclists, but it could also be that people were wearing them wrong, or that the government wasn't enforcing the helmet law, or that there was a flaw in the design.
-
PRESS RELEASE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:
Plenty of time to get those drinking game rules worked out ... Number of times he says:
Common Sense
Gun Violence
Gun Laws
Assault Weapon
Guns/Firearms
Radical Islamic Extremists
Religion of Peace
etc ...
don't forget-
he makes "bitter beer face" -> do a shot
-
While you are right about the studies showing no significant effect of the assault weapons ban, that isn't the only reason it wasn't renewed. Had democrats controlled congress when it was set to expire you might have seen a different result.
That's exactly what I was thinking. The antis don't need facts to justify gun bans. They have feelings.
-
Consider other possibilities, for example, maybe the assault weapons ban was not in place long enough to have an effect, maybe it wasn't enforced strongly enough, or maybe it needed to be done differently. It is still a double edged sword because someone who is anti gun rights can use the same fact (gun control didn't work) but arrive at an opposite conclusion.
10 years wasn't long enough? :wacko:
Laws are enacted to 'protect the people' are implemented to have an immediate or near future effect; 10 years is not near future. In those 10 years, hundreds, if not thousands of lives should have been saved; they weren't. Criminals still killed individuals, and it did nothing to reduce crime. In fact, it was only after the 'assault weapon' ban that we do see significant drops in crime within the same span of time that the law was implemented.
-
10 years wasn't long enough? :wacko:
Laws are enacted to 'protect the people' are implemented to have an immediate or near future effect; 10 years is not near future. In those 10 years, hundreds, if not thousands of lives should have been saved; they weren't. Criminals still killed individuals, and it did nothing to reduce crime. In fact, it was only after the 'assault weapon' ban that we do see significant drops in crime within the same span of time that the law was implemented.
The argument could certainly be made that 10 years wasn't long enough. Obviously just because you ban the firearms doesn't mean the existing supply will just disappear. It would take time for the existing supply to be taken off the street. They might even argue that the drop in crime following the repeal was just a delayed effect of the ban. I doubt it but I wouldn't have anything to immediately disprove that theory.
The basic point I am making is that a conclusion is being drawn when multiple possible conclusions still exist. We cannot claim a single solid conclusion from the fact at hand, it wouldn't be a scientifically valid argument.
-
So you're saying 10 years is not long enough for a valid study ?
You just threw out 98% of the studies ever done on anything.
???
-
The 10 years for the 2004-2014 Assault Weapons Ban was not even a "study". It was the IMPLEMENTATION of an AWB which the authors had been trying to ram through Congress for over two decades after their handgun bans failed to pass.
That means, instead of a statistical sample of various locations and groups, you have THE ENTIRE NATION and EVERY SINGLE GUN OWNER and EVERY SINGLE REAL LIFE CRIME to include in your reports.
The reports are not forecasts, but actual results. This is more concrete and demonstrable than ANY study could ever be. You are evaluating actual results, not a bunch of extrapolations and polling surveys.
To me, you could not ask for a better population of "study" data than this. Arguing these 10 years was insufficient to have any effect is totally ridiculous. It perfectly illustrated this one important fact above all others: in violent crimes involving guns, the type of gun used is incidental. Look at ACTUAL crimes and the ACTUAL guns used. AR-15 style weapons have always been limited to a small percentage of crimes. Even though an event like Sandy Hook may result in 20+ deaths, that represents ONE criminal using ONE AR-15 in ONE event.
Had there been 20+ incidents of 20+ criminals using 20+ AR-15s, maybe then we would see a need for another AWB.
-
So you're saying 10 years is not long enough for a valid study ?
You just threw out 98% of the studies ever done on anything.
???
I am saying that there remains too many open variables to make any sort of solid conclusion. Correlation does not equal causation.
I prefer to avoid this argument because it can be flipped and used against us.
I am not saying that 10 years is not enough, I am saying that is one possible angle they might claim. I also mentioned other possible angles they could claim in an attempt to use our own point against us. The variables make it inconclusive as to whether gun control works. The fact that the AWB did not have an impact just leaves a fork in the road. Either it just cannot work, or it wasn't done right. And you cannot just use one type of gun control to show all gun control will fail because gun control legislation can exist in very different forms. As is rightly pointed out, very few murders are done with assault rifles but their reply would be the gun control was poorly designed as it targeted the wrong firearm and then try to ban all pistols. It is a slippery circumstantial argument. It is weak scientifically speaking and can be turned against us so I hesitate to use it. It is data that does have its place in the whole picture but we shouldn't present it as something it isn't.
Imagine you want to put out a fire so you pour a little water on it but the fire remains unchanged. I could point to your attempts and say "see, water doesn't work at fighting fire." You on the other hand would rightly point out that the conclusion is premature. You would tell me maybe we just needed more water or maybe the way the water was applied made it ineffective, etc.
-
I am saying that there remains too many open variables to make any sort of solid conclusion. Correlation does not equal causation.
I prefer to avoid this argument because it can be flipped and used against us.
I am not saying that 10 years is not enough, I am saying that is one possible angle they might claim. I also mentioned other possible angles they could claim in an attempt to use our own point against us. The variables make it inconclusive as to whether gun control works. The fact that the AWB did not have an impact just leaves a fork in the road. Either it just cannot work, or it wasn't done right. And you cannot just use one type of gun control to show all gun control will fail because gun control legislation can exist in very different forms. As is rightly pointed out, very few murders are done with assault rifles but their reply would be the gun control was poorly designed as it targeted the wrong firearm and then try to ban all pistols. It is a slippery circumstantial argument. It is weak scientifically speaking and can be turned against us so I hesitate to use it. It is data that does have its place in the whole picture but we shouldn't present it as something it isn't.
Imagine you want to put out a fire so you pour a little water on it but the fire remains unchanged. I could point to your attempts and say "see, water doesn't work at fighting fire." You on the other hand would rightly point out that the conclusion is premature. You would tell me maybe we just needed more water or maybe the way the water was applied made it ineffective, etc.
Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer." Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself? I believe it's the latter. (I'm not saying this, but others might ...)
-
Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer." Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself? I believe it's the latter. (I'm not saying this, but others might ...)
I truly think it's greg
-
He has multiple accounts.
-
He has multiple accounts.
That's a violation of forum policy.
If that is true, where are the MODS?
They have access to the IP addresses.
-
:stopjack:
-
The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect because criminals rarely use so called "assault weapons" when committing crimes.
10 years or 100, it wouldn't have had an effect because it never addressed the problem.
More people, even before the ban, were killed with blunt objects and knives than with rifles of ANY type. The point of the ban was moot before the ink was dry.
Criminals are the problem and they, by nature, don't follow the law.
You can't force criminals into compliance by writing laws that only effect the law abiding citizens. That is idiocy.
Gun control is like castrating yourself because your neighbors have too many kids.
-
Here we go again with the "gun-grabber whisperer." Are you truly that in tune with the anti's, or do you simply think that way yourself? I believe it's the latter. (I'm not saying this, but others might ...)
It benefits you to know your opponent. Not everyone will use the same thought process as you or arrive at the same conclusions given the same information. Failing to realize that is shooting yourself in the foot.
-
The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect because criminals rarely use so called "assault weapons" when committing crimes.
10 years or 100, it wouldn't have had an effect because it never addressed the problem.
More people, even before the ban, were killed with blunt objects and knives than with rifles of ANY type. The point of the ban was moot before the ink was dry.
Criminals are the problem and they, by nature, don't follow the law.
You can't force criminals into compliance by writing laws that only effect the law abiding citizens. That is idiocy.
Gun control is like castrating yourself because your neighbors have too many kids.
I don't think anyone passed the ban because they thought criminals would listen. I think they passed the ban believing it would be harder for criminals to get the guns.
Thought process: AW (assault weapons) become illegal = fewer AW made = fewer AW sold = fewer stolen = fewer in the hands of criminals = fewer crimes involving AW. Their argument will likely be that because there were already lots of AW in circulation, banning new ones only didn't take away the ones already in the country, thus no change. That doesn't mean this is actually the reason there was no effect but it is hard to disprove this as a possibility.
Of course their focus was poor because as you point out, these assault weapons were not commonly used in crimes. But their answer might just be that instead of assault weapons they should have targeted handguns or all guns. They will use your own argument to say that the gun control didn't work because they did it wrong and if they could try again they would get a different result by changing the focus.
-
I am not sure why anyone is even discussing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban?
This incident occurred in California which has in effect the Assault Weapons Ban of 1989. Which BTW forced me to take my AR-15 and drive over to Arizona to sell it because I sure as hell wasn't going to turn it to the Gestapo. And I want all of you to know the BIG LIE that went on while the left was trying to garner support for this weapons ban. And that was we were going to be able to keep of grandfathered in AR-15's. Turns out after the bill passed that in order to keep our AR-15's we had to register them. Guess they forgot to tell us this? Also, 30 round magazines were grandfathered in as well. As long as they were manufactured prior to 1989. Well, guess what? The left caught on that NO ONE DATE STAMPS THEIR MAGAZINES!!! Along came the addition to the 1989 act with the 1999 act. Now just the act of buying and bringing in a rebuild kit for high capacity magazines is illegal. And some cities passed mere possession of high cap mags a crime.
All of this and more are currently in effect and were in full effect when this crime was committed. These laws are much more strict than the Federal laws that were not even in effect at the time of the crime. So I go back and wonder why any one is even discussing something so inconsequential to the subject matter? Did we go off topic again? :rofl:
-
Mom says he's a good boy :rofl:
http://news.yahoo.com/latest-fbi-searches-california-lake-near-massacre-212429462.html
-
I don't think anyone passed the ban because they thought criminals would listen. I think they passed the ban believing it would be harder for criminals to get the guns.
Thought process: AW (assault weapons) become illegal = fewer AW made = fewer AW sold = fewer stolen = fewer in the hands of criminals = fewer crimes involving AW. Their argument will likely be that because there were already lots of AW in circulation, banning new ones only didn't take away the ones already in the country, thus no change. That doesn't mean this is actually the reason there was no effect but it is hard to disprove this as a possibility.
Of course their focus was poor because as you point out, these assault weapons were not commonly used in crimes. But their answer might just be that instead of assault weapons they should have targeted handguns or all guns. They will use your own argument to say that the gun control didn't work because they did it wrong and if they could try again they would get a different result by changing the focus.
You give politicians too much credit.
Politicians listen to special interest groups.
Special interest groups failed to have handguns banned (they tried).
Special interest groups went after the next most common guns after handguns: the AR-15 and similar rifles. They did this because: (1) they new they could paint them as weapons of war and confuse the ignorant non-gun-owners, and (2) the AR-15 represented the moet popular, most widely owned rifle over any other type in the US.
Special interest groups then created a campaign to ban these "Assault Weapons" with no other goal than to take as many firearms away from Americans as they could.
Special interest groups sold the Assault Weapons ban to law makers after a shooting (emotional reaction -- never let a good tragedy go to waste).
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."
Efforts to create restrictions on assault weapons at the federal government level intensified in 1989 after 5 children and a teacher were shot and five children killed in Stockton, Calif. using a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 assault rifle. The July 1993 101 California Street shooting also contributed to passage of the ban. The shooter killed eight people and wounded six. Two of the three firearms he used were TEC-9 semi-automatic handguns with Hellfire triggers. The ban tried to address public concerns about mass shootings by restricting firearms that met the criteria for what it defined as a "semiautomatic assault weapon," as well as magazines that met the criteria for what it defined as a "large capacity ammunition feeding device."
-
It benefits you to know your opponent. Not everyone will use the same thought process as you or arrive at the same conclusions given the same information. Failing to realize that is shooting yourself in the foot.
Most of us on here already know everything there is to know about our opponent .....
... and he sounds exactly like you!
-
Most of us on here already know everything there is to know about our opponent .....
... and he sounds exactly like you!
The difference between you and me is that I can be objective. You tend to assume the narrative that most fits what you want.
-
How the U.S. reacts to a mass shooting...
-
The difference between you and me is that I can be objective. You tend to assume the narrative that most fits what you want.
You're posts not objective.
Objectivity is based on facts, while subjectivity is based on opinion.
The facts proved that the assault weapons ban did not work, yet you are making excuses as to how it didn't have enough time, which is your opinion.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/IXPcctu.jpg)
-
You're posts not objective.
Objectivity is based on facts, while subjectivity is based on opinion.
The facts proved that the assault weapons ban did not work, yet you are making excuses as to how it didn't have enough time, which is your opinion.
I agree, the assault weapons ban did not work. The question that is relevant is why. As long as we fail to address or prove the why part of if then it continues to be a double edged sword.
If you take a medicine for an ailment and you see no effect, do you automatically know that it means the medicine is worthless? Or do you then also have consider dose, conflicts with other medicines, diet, etc?
-
I agree, the assault weapons ban did not work. The question that is relevant is why. As long as we fail to address or prove the why part of if then it continues to be a double edged sword.
If you take a medicine for an ailment and you see no effect, do you automatically know that it means the medicine is worthless? Or do you then also have consider dose, conflicts with other medicines, diet, etc?
Question. Do you take a medication that has no bearing nor use what so ever on a certain type of identified ailment, and then expect it to do anything to cure said ailment?
Ie... Would you take pepto bismol for a headache?
-
I agree, the assault weapons ban did not work. The question that is relevant is why. As long as we fail to address or prove the why part of if then it continues to be a double edged sword.
If you take a medicine for an ailment and you see no effect, do you automatically know that it means the medicine is worthless? Or do you then also have consider dose, conflicts with other medicines, diet, etc?
No! No! No!
People in favor of the ban have no interest in it working. They have one goal: ban guns. As many as possible now, and all of them eventually.
They no more want to identify why the ban was ineffective as you have of doing your own research when it's easier to post questions and wait for others to feed you the answers.
The truth is also something they do not want to hear. They banned a type/class of weapon used in maybe 1% of all crimes. They chose this type for one reason: the AR-15 is the most widely owned rifle in the US. Ban it, you ban a huge number of rifles at once!
Criminals don't use an AR-15 often, and when they do, it's mostly because that's what they happen to own! Ban that gun, and they will use a shotgun or handgun or Mosin-Nagant, because that's what they have or can get hold of!
They did not ban hate, evil, mental illness, psychological problems or alcoholic drinks & hallucinogenic drugs. The guns are incidental to the acts. Take away one means, the person will choose another.
Studying why is not necessary when you already know the cure was never meant to address any real problem.
Agendas are like that. When all you have is a hammer, every problem resembles a nail.
-
People in favor of the ban have no interest in it working. They have one goal: ban guns. As many as possible now, and all of them eventually.
Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.
-
Question. Do you take a medication that has no bearing nor use what so ever on a certain type of identified ailment, and then expect it to do anything to cure said ailment?
Ie... Would you take pepto bismol for a headache?
I don't want to get into an analogy nitpicking war but I suppose I could alter my analogy slightly to better fit the situation.
So you have a condition and the doctor gives you a medication that does not work because it does not actually target the condition. Do you then come to the conclusion that no medication will ever work?
-
Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.
It's never been a secret. There are plenty of examples of Obama and Hillary saying the same, but here's a quote specifically talking about the assault weapons ban of 1994 ...
https://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY
-
Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.
"Despite his assurance to Fox News that he understands the Second Amendment, it's a good bet that the positions Obama took on guns during his time at Chicago reveal his true convictions."
The chapter documents the actions that Obama has taken on guns, citing the following:
In 1996, Obama supported a ban on handguns
In 1998, he supported a ban on the sale of all semi-automatic guns
In 2004, he advocated banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park, which would have shut down nearly all gun stores
In Chapter Three, Mr. Lott discusses gun-control and takes the reader back to his time at the University of Chicago, where he and then-professor Barack Obama spoke on numerous occasions about guns in America.
"I don't believe people should be able to own guns," Obama told Lott one day at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott explains that he first met Obama shortly after completing his research on concealed handgun laws and crime.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/author-quotes-then-professor-obama-saying-i-dont-believe-people-should
-
Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.
It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program,
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.
A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if
not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure
to run into intense political opposition.
Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.
"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have
had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the
U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67
https://youtu.be/DFNAEYHlCyQ
The "Australian Gun Buy-Back" was not a voluntary program. It was mandatory confiscation, for which the government provided partial compensation for the value of the gun/s surrendered.
-
It's never been a secret. There are plenty of examples of Obama and Hillary saying the same, but here's a quote specifically talking about the assault weapons ban of 1994 ...
I didn't ask for anecdotes, I asked for proof that you spoke for them all. No one doubts that there are those who want any and all guns banished but you are creating a false dichotomy. It is not a black and white situation where anyone who supports some gun control is therefore in favor of absolute bans on all guns.
-
I didn't ask for anecdotes, I asked for proof that you spoke for them all. No one doubts that there are those who want any and all guns banished but you are creating a false dichotomy. It is not a black and white situation where anyone who supports some gun control is therefore in favor of absolute bans on all guns.
That's HILARIOUS, considering you seem to speak for ALL ANTI-GUN SUPPORTERS and how they feel and think!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Do please tell me how you somehow know the secret real intentions of all of those who voted for the AWB and are able to speak for all of them.
Do you know the NY Times? Arguably the most liberal rag on the planet. Here is an interesting article admitting the lies of the left and the role the media played in it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
-
I don't want to get into an analogy nitpicking war but I suppose I could alter my analogy slightly to better fit the situation.
So you have a condition and the doctor gives you a medication that does not work because it does not actually target the condition. Do you then come to the conclusion that no medication will ever work?
Don't think it is nitpicking at all. If the doctor has misdiagnosed the condition, the medication given to treat the misdiagnosed condition will not work.
It is a proven fact, even by left hand studies, that "ass alt weapons" are NOT a significant threat to society. So, the condition is misdiagnosed, therefore, the medication(Ass alt bans) will not work, no matter how much dosage is applied.
Question why it has been purposefully and obviously misdiagnosed? Reason, they don't care if their cure works, they just want that chip chip chip of your rights, eventually they will reach the goal of total confiscation, all the while, the condition is never cured, because the condition stated is NOT the problem that needs curing.
-
Don't think it is nitpicking at all. If the doctor has misdiagnosed the condition, the medication given to treat the misdiagnosed condition will not work.
It is a proven fact, even by left hand studies, that "ass alt weapons" are NOT a significant threat to society. So, the condition is misdiagnosed, therefore, the medication(Ass alt bans) will not work, no matter how much dosage is applied.
Question why it has been purposefully and obviously misdiagnosed? Reason, they don't care if their cure works, they just want that chip chip chip of your rights, eventually they will reach the goal of total confiscation, all the while, the condition is never cured, because the condition stated is NOT the problem that needs curing.
ED ZACHARY!!
The first step in finding any solution is to properly define the problem. Seems like such an easy, common sense step.
When the problem is always stated to be "There are too many guns", the only obvious solution is "We need to get rid of the guns."
The real problems are much more difficult to solve, so they prefer to push an agenda over any real solutions.
-
That's HILARIOUS, considering you seem to speak for ALL ANTI-GUN SUPPORTERS and how they feel and think!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I never claimed to speak for all of any side. I advocate objectivity. Your narrow view of your opponent will only sabotage your efforts. Your are being no different than the anti-gunners who think that all second amendment supporters believe convicted felons should be allowed to own nukes.
-
Do you know the NY Times? Arguably the most liberal rag on the planet. Here is an interesting article admitting the lies of the left and the role the media played in it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0
I thought the Huffington Post was the worst >:D
But good on the NYT for reporting this.
-
Don't think it is nitpicking at all. If the doctor has misdiagnosed the condition, the medication given to treat the misdiagnosed condition will not work.
It is a proven fact, even by left hand studies, that "ass alt weapons" are NOT a significant threat to society. So, the condition is misdiagnosed, therefore, the medication(Ass alt bans) will not work, no matter how much dosage is applied.
Question why it has been purposefully and obviously misdiagnosed? Reason, they don't care if their cure works, they just want that chip chip chip of your rights, eventually they will reach the goal of total confiscation, all the while, the condition is never cured, because the condition stated is NOT the problem that needs curing.
Using the analogy, I am in agreement that clearly there was a misdiagnoses. but that misdiagnoses does not rule out any and all medications as there could theoretically be a medication that would work.
My personal suspicion is that they would prefer to get handguns banned but that they didn't think they would get enough support.
But I do consider it very plausible that someone who wrote the bill had no idea on the statistics involving gun crimes vs gun types and wrote the law out or ignorance. (as opposed to the chip chip chip theory)
I have no doubt that some want all guns banned by any means possible, but what I am looking at is the logical reasoning and scientific method involved in using studies to prove or disprove certain conclusions. I want to soundly defeat their arguments but to do this I must also admit and address weaknesses in my own arguments. Hence my mention of the double edged sword.
If they wanted to implement the same ban again I think we have a decent argument against it. But if they wanted to submit a different type of ban, I don't think the failure of the AWB is some sort of trump card against any and all newly proposed legislation.
-
Using the analogy, I am in agreement that clearly there was a misdiagnoses. but that misdiagnoses does not rule out any and all medications as there could theoretically be a medication that would work.
My personal suspicion is that they would prefer to get handguns banned but that they didn't think they would get enough support.
But I do consider it very plausible that someone who wrote the bill had no idea on the statistics involving gun crimes vs gun types and wrote the law out or ignorance. (as opposed to the chip chip chip theory)
I have no doubt that some want all guns banned by any means possible, but what I am looking at is the logical reasoning and scientific method involved in using studies to prove or disprove certain conclusions. I want to soundly defeat their arguments but to do this I must also admit and address weaknesses in my own arguments. Hence my mention of the double edged sword.
If they wanted to implement the same ban again I think we have a decent argument against it. But if they wanted to submit a different type of ban, I don't think the failure of the AWB is some sort of trump card against any and all newly proposed legislation.
We got us a dad-gum genius here!
From the NYT article you supposedly just read:
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates
had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to
kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there
was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
We got us a dad-gum genius here!
From the NYT article you supposedly just read:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I have mentioned the handgun issue prior to you posting the article, so your trolling sarcasm is unnecessary.