Pittsburgh shooting

[hitmanyr2k]

I guess my city was due. Another crazy asshole with an AR-15 decided to yell "all Jews must die" shooting up a Jewish synagogue. He shot cops too.

1056204567468298240

[Reck]

Couple of jews dead..who cares, amirite?

[boutons_deux]

took the shooter alive?

must be a white guy, who hates Jews

[hater]

“He found a father in Trump :cry” - cnn

[SnakeBoy]

Thoughts and Prayers for the victims

[Spurs Homer]

Trump: (dog whistling) "I'm a NATIONALIST"


Nationalist Supporter: "I got this, Boss!"

Republicans/Trumptards: "(crickets)"

[Chucho]

Trump: (dog whistling) "I'm a NATIONALIST"


Nationalist Supporter: "I got this, Boss!"

Republicans/Trumptards: "(crickets)"

Wow, you're a piece of work.

[hater]

Called dat shit :tu

Snowflake retards will blame trump

[Pelicans78]

Part and parcel

[hater]

Oops:

https://twitter.com/basedgod_omar/status/1056221827922505729?s=21

[Spurs Homer]

Oops:

https://twitter.com/basedgod_omar/status/1056221827922505729?s=21


called dat shit?

[hater]

Oops:

https://twitter.com/thistlejay/status/1056222654980648960?s=21

[Spurs Homer]

FOX news: “ a nationalist is someone who loves his country”

[Pelicans78]

Hopefully Trump goes after his family like he promised to do in his campaign.

[hitmanyr2k]

Oops:

https://twitter.com/thistlejay/status/1056222654980648960?s=21

I know people are always in a rush to identify the shooter for their "team" but are you sure you have the right guy? They're reporting his name here as Robert Bower...without the "s".

[djohn2oo8]

I thought the wall was supposed to keep out all these murderers

[djohn2oo8]

1056225296721027073

nevermind that cops were killed

[TSA]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.

[Reck]

Called dat shit :tu



Time to kill this lame shtick, son.

[djohn2oo8]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.
Your boy blamed the victims. Cuck

[Pelicans78]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.

Yeah he should have shown restraint like the President.

[djohn2oo8]

Yeah he should have shown restraint like the President.
:lol

[Splits]

https://twitter.com/lrozen/status/1056211447351595008

[Pavlov]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.lol you just called Trump a sick fuck

[boutons_deux]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.

this was Jew-hating POLITICAL terrorism, sick fuck

[Pavlov]

Well thank God this terrorist is further right than Trump. So it doesn't count, right?

[djohn2oo8]

But if they had guns tho.....

[ducks]

Let’s toughen the death penalty and in this case use firing squad

It would stop this shit

[djohn2oo8]

Let’s toughen the death penalty and in this case use firing squad

It would stop this shit
:lmao

[Pavlov]

Let’s toughen the death penalty and in this case use firing squad

It would stop this shitlol no, it won't

[Reck]

Let’s toughen the death penalty and in this case use firing squad

It would stop this shit

How would it stop it?

Most mass shooters kill themselves or are killed by police on sight.

[ducks]

I thought the wall was supposed to keep out all these murderers

Let’s put it in and see

[ducks]

How would it stop it?

Most mass shooters kill themselves or are killed by police on sight.

Let’s find out


When they had public hangings it stoppped a lot of crime

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao what

[Spurs Homer]

Let’s toughen the death penalty and in this case use firing squad

It would stop this shit

You know what would be more effective?

Showing close ups of the carnage after someone uses an AR15. Let the media show the bodies torn to shreds on live feeds until the public REALLY gets sick of allowing the NRA to make the rules and vote out anyone who accepts money from the Gun lobby.

[Pavlov]

Let’s find out


When they had public hangings it stoppped a lot of crime
The U.S. murder rate last year hit the lowest level since 1966 as the number of serious crimes committed nationwide fell for the eighth year in a row, the FBI said today.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379&page=1

lol ducks

[ducks]

lol no, it won't

When they did in past it worked
If death row imates would not stay alive 20 years afterwards living better then homeless people in la
It would stop

[ducks]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379&page=1

lol ducks

Lol mass shootings are rising
Bring firing squad back

[Reck]

Let’s find out


When they had public hangings it stoppped a lot of crime

Take your meds.

[ducks]

Ar15 are not the problem
The penalty for murdering people is



People will use anything to kill others

You can not outlaw everything

[boutons_deux]

"The U.S. murder rate last year hit the lowest level since 1966 as the number of serious crimes committed nationwide fell for the eighth year in a row, the FBI said today."

Serious crimes have been going down, because EXECUTIONS have been going up! :lol

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/exo_year-2018-18.png

[rastaspur]

This nutjob job was so far right he thought trump was a pussy in terms of open level of hatred. Didnt like him cause he didnt high five that psycho who ran over peaceful protestors and immediately pardon him.

You keep blowing a dog whistle and eventually a stray with rabies will come a callin. The pipe bomb dude was that. This guy acted not because of trump but in spite of him. If trump was already cracking down on the jews then he wouldnt have had to take matters into his own hands. He thought trump was a pussy and all bark and no bite so he did it himself.

Thats real talk. Spin it all you want but that is how it is and how this played out.

[clambake]

ducks trump obsession now has him calling for public executions.

you need therapy. not a joke

[ducks]

Take your meds.

Lol at liberals blaming the choice of weapon and do not want to make toughen the penalty’s

[ducks]

ducks trump obsession now has him calling for public executions.

you need therapy. not a joke

What is wrong with that
Do not want to see it do not watch

[Pavlov]

When they did in past it worked
If death row imates would not stay alive 20 years afterwards living better then homeless people in la
It would stoplol no, it wouldn't.

[ducks]

lol no, it wouldn't.

Lol it will and you know it

[rastaspur]

Lol at liberals blaming the choice of weapon and do not want to make toughen the penalty’s

You sir, are retarded.

[ducks]

Lol all this alias

[Pavlov]

Lol it will and you know itlol no, it won't. I won't say you know it because there are so many things you don't know.

[Chucho]

I read something the other day that showed how the sharp decline in serial killers coincided with the rise of mass murderer and that many of the new breed of mass murderers had the psycopahtic traits that serial killers have. The sharp decline in serial killers is directly related to forensic science finding killers more easily.

[SnakeBoy]

https://archive.is/PT44O

[SnakeBoy]

Dude is batshit crazy

[DMC]

Couple of jews dead..who cares, amirite?

Pretty shitty thing to say just for lulz

[SnakeBoy]

If trump was already cracking down on the jews then he wouldnt have had to take matters into his own hands.

Wut?

[Trill Clinton]

Another radicalized right wing terrorist huh?

[rastaspur]

Wut?

Go look at his gab page and see his criticism of trump. He disliked trump because he wasnt dupporting white nationalists and their agenda more openly. Called trump a globalist. He perceived trump as a pussy. Had to kick it up a notch.

[baseline bum]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95379&page=1

lol ducks

Trumpers' feelings don't care about your facts.

[djohn2oo8]

Pretty shitty thing to say just for lulz
More shitty than the actual shooting amirite?

[Pavlov]

Pretty shitty thing to say just for lulzDMC clutches his pearls.

[Spurtacular]

Trump: (dog whistling) "I'm a NATIONALIST"


Nationalist Supporter: "I got this, Boss!"

Republicans/Trumptards: "(crickets)"

:lmao Retard

[Spurminator]

djohn waited less than a minute to start trying to score political points. smh. Sick fuck.

lol This bitch with the running "Religion of Peace" thread

:cry :cry political points

[DMC]

More shitty than the actual shooting amirite?

Ask Kyle.

[Winehole23]

anti-refugee sentiment was a motive:


Close
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqiGHTaW4AEGfQF.jpg:large
Previous
Next

[DMC]

Let's deify this clown with weeks of commentary.

[Winehole23]

it hasn't even been a day. too much for you already?

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqiIQI_X0AEm0YH.jpg

[Winehole23]

McCarthy posted that after Soros got the suspicious package. an alert aide promptly deleted it.

[Winehole23]

ADL says it's probably the most deadly attack against Jews in US history.

[DMC]

it hasn't even been a day. too much for you already?

I'll wait for your 40th post responding to the same thing then I'll decide what your summary actually is.

[Winehole23]

last year DJT berated a Hasidic journalist who dared to ask about the uptick in anti-semitism.


The exchange began with Turx standing up from his third-row seat and gesturing slightly toward his fellow reporters:


“Despite what some of my colleagues may have been reporting, I haven’t seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself or anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic. We understand that you have Jewish grandchildren. You are their zayde,” which is Yiddish for “grandfather” and often a word of great affection.


At that Trump nodded slightly, and said, “Thank you.”



“However,” Turx continued, “what we are concerned about and what we haven’t really heard being addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it. There’s been a report out that 48 bomb threats have been made against Jewish centers all across the country in the last couple of weeks. There are people committing anti-Semitic acts or threatening to —”


At that, Trump interrupted, saying it was “not a fair question.”


“Sit down,” the president commanded. “I understand the rest of your question.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/jewish-reporter-stunned-by-trump-tongue-lashing/

[Winehole23]

Trump said, “I find it repulsive. I hate even the question because people that know me …”




He went on to say that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, during his visit to the United States on Wednesday, had vouched for Trump as a good friend of Israel and the Jewish people and no anti-Semite.


Trump concluded Turx should have relied on Netanyahu’s endorsement, “instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.”

[Winehole23]

I'll wait for your 40th post responding to the same thing then I'll decide what your summary actually is.you have nothing to say?

noted.

[Reck]

I'll wait for your 40th post responding to the same thing then I'll decide what your summary actually is.

God knows you have plenty of ways to waste time while you wait to respond. Choices varies from Doritos to butter popcorn to italian sausages.

Then there is always your tranny porn stash to waste even more time.

[DMC]

God knows you have plenty of ways to waste time while you wait to respond. Choices varies from Doritos to butter popcorn to italian sausages.

Then there is always your tranny porn stash to waste even more time.

You can always tell by the uncomfortable reaction from onlookers how personal the subject matter became.

[DMC]

you have nothing to say?

noted.

#7

[Pavlov]

I'll wait for your 40th post responding to the same thing then I'll decide what your summary actually is.lol DMC can't even take a stand on something he's bitching about.

[Reck]

You can always tell by the uncomfortable reaction from onlookers how personal the subject matter became.

Or you know you, your penchant for it prompted a comment about it. Not to mention you cant quit posting about how gay you are for some of the members here. :lol

[Winehole23]

just stands around and bitches about people who do have takes

[FrostKing]

FOX news: “ a nationalist is someone who loves his country”
Nationalist carries different meaning in multicultural nations as opposed to homogenous. You don't need native blood to be considered American. You do need native blood to be considered a Jap.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Antisemetics are disgusting, tbh... Jews are good for the world IMO they believe in peace, freedom of religion, capitalism, and separation of church(synagogue?) and state.

[DMC]

Or you know you, your penchant for it prompted a comment about it. Not to mention you cant quit posting about how gay you are for some of the members here. :lol

There are more dead Jews for you to scoff at. chop chop

[SnakeBoy]

just stands around and bitches about people who do have takes

Everything is Trump's fault isn't much of a take.

[DMC]

Everything is Trump's fault isn't much of a take.

Especially when 75% of the "takes" on here are tweets from people who don't post here.

If the dems do well in the elections, it's because Trump sucks and the country is speaking out.

If the dems lose, it's because Trump sucks and the country is full of racists, homophobes and bigots.

[Winehole23]

I don't think everything is Trump's fault.

I do think some things are.

[Winehole23]

MAGA snowflakes won't accept a particle of responsibility for anything the charismatic leader does or says.

[DMC]

MAGA snowflakes won't accept a particle of responsibility for anything the charismatic leader does or says.

Why should they? They didn't do or say it.

[SnakeBoy]

MAGA snowflakes won't accept a particle of responsibility for anything the charismatic leader does or says.

Blood on our hands?

[Winehole23]

Especially when 75% of the "takes" on here are tweets from people who don't post here.grow up. twitter is a source of news and info in real time.

kinda like a newswire.

[Winehole23]

Blood on our hands?DJT has been playing a very dangerous game, as have his followers.

words matter.

do you think words matter, Snake Boy?

[DMC]

grow up. twitter is a source of news and info in real time.

kinda like a newswire.

Random opinions phrased as passive aggressive statements don't qualify as "news". I suppose to some liberal news media followers though it's status quo.

[Winehole23]

as usual, you kick everything you don't like into one ditch without distinction, then piss on it.

very lazy. there's better and worse, as with everything.

[DMC]

as usual, you kick everything you don't like into one ditch without distinction, then piss on it.

very lazy. there's better and worse, as with everything.

What's lazy is shit like the "gun laws" comment in the tweet above. It ignores that it was an answer to a question that brought up gun laws.

So then Reck scoffs at the deaths of Jews. Never mind the context. Let's all be stupid if it scores a point here or there.

[Pavlov]

DMC: selective snowflake

[DMC]

DMC: selective snowflake

Do you think it's ok to scoff at these deaths because they are Jewish?

Yes or no

[Winehole23]

whether prompted or not, Trump put gun laws on the menu with his initial response to this.

he blamed temple security and the lack of guns on the scene (even though four cops got shot) for the death toll, then he covered the NRA's ass.

[Winehole23]

2018: that's presidential

[Pavlov]

Do you think it's ok to scoff at these deaths because they are Jewish?

Yes or noI think that's a false premise.

If you believe Reck was totes serious about that, you're an unbelievable snowflake.

[DMC]

whether prompted or not, Trump put gun laws on the menu with his initial response to this.

he blamed temple security and the lack of guns on the scene (even though four cops got shot) for the death toll, then he covered the NRA's ass.

Why did the police show up since guns weren't the answer?

[DMC]

I think that's a false premise.

If you believe Reck was totes serious about that, you're an unbelievable snowflake.

There's no premise.

Do you think it's ok to scoff at these deaths because they are Jewish?

Yes or no

[Winehole23]

Why did the police show up since guns weren't the answer?I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying the president is full of shit and that his comment was shitlord preening.

[Pavlov]

There's no premise.You just stated your premise, dumbass.

[DMC]

I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying the president is full of shit and that his comment was shitlord preening.

You're not saying guns weren't the answer but you're saying Trump was wrong to say guns were the answer? Guns were called in a bit late. Had there been armed security this event likely never takes place.

So two options, choose the most realistic:

1. Ban all guns and ensure no one who could ever commit an act like this has access to a firearm (which means basically everyone)
2. Secure large gatherings of unarmed people using armed people (you know, the the federal government does for themselves)

[DMC]

You just stated your premise, dumbass.

I asked a question. What premise did I state? Be specific.

[Pavlov]

I asked a question. What premise did I state? Be specific.Your premise is that reck scoffed at these deaths because they are Jewish.

If it isn't your premise there is no reason for you to ask the question at all.

[DMC]

Your premise is that reck scoffed at these deaths because they are Jewish.

If it isn't your premise there is no reason for you to ask the question at all.

I never mentioned Reck in the question.

Do you think it's ok to scoff at these deaths just because they were Jewish?

Yes or no

[Winehole23]

You're not saying guns weren't the answer but you're saying Trump was wrong to say guns were the answer?He was blaming the temple for the body count.

Most indelicate.

[Pavlov]

I never mentioned Reck in the question.No, you didn't.

So you believe no one here scoffed at these deaths because they are Jewish.

Cool. I agree with that.

[Winehole23]

in b4 MOAR GUNS is always the correct answer

[DMC]

He was blaming the temple for the body count.

Most indelicate.

I heard his statement. He did not blame it on the temple. He said the event could have been different had there been armed protection inside the temple. He's not going to be able to disarm the US. Obama couldn't do it in his 8 years. Clinton couldn't do it in his. The Bush tandem didn't try. So suggesting disarmament or gun laws as the answer is naive since we cannot create an ad hoc utopian society and we certainly cannot do it in retrospect. We can ensure people we care about are protected however. This is why the police exist - because we (you and I) cannot control the other 300+ million people in this country.

So you're using confirmation bias by suggesting he was blaming the temple. it's clear he wasn't.

[DMC]

in b4 MOAR GUNS is always the correct answer

Strawman

Why were the cops called?

[DMC]

No, you didn't.

So you believe no one here scoffed at these deaths because they are Jewish.

Cool. I agree with that.

You refuse to condemn it. Noted.

[Winehole23]

StrawmanNot at all, it's a reasonable condensation of the point you made and are trying to make.

[DMC]

Not at all, it's a reasonable condensation of the point you made and are trying to make.

Noted that you remove and ignore tough questions.

Safe space quoting

[Winehole23]

what tough question, that we need a police force to contest criminal force?

Not challenged by me. I never said the police are the problem here.

[Pavlov]

You refuse to condemn it. Noted.Who scoffed at it?

I'll condemn them, DMC.

No one here has scoffed at it.

[DMC]

what tough question, that we need a police force to contest criminal force?

Not challenged by me. I never said the police are the problem here.

I asked why they were called. The obvious answer is because they could neutralize the shooter and perhaps save lives. They would have been called even if they were unarmed, but they intentionally are not unarmed. They are not awaiting a Utopian society - they deal with the society we have now.

Why then is it wrong to suggest anticipating these kinds of attacks and being prepared for them is prudent? Does it shatter your imaginary security bubble?

[DMC]

Who scoffed at it?

I'll condemn them, DMC.

No one here has scoffed at it.

You've made your position known. No need for further comments on the matter.

[hater]

Bowers made his disdain for US President Donald Trump known, saying he “did not vote for him” and has never “worn or even touched a MAGA [Make America Great Again] hat.”


Oops

[Nathan89]

Bowers made his disdain for US President Donald Trump known, saying he “did not vote for him” and has never “worn or even touched a MAGA [Make America Great Again] hat.”


Oops

Were those Twitter posts confirmed to be him?

[Will Hunting]

Not making light of what this guy did, but I’ll at least give him credit for criticizing the hilarious notion that a multi-billionaire who’s various businesses have utilized immigrant labor and overseas labor is going to bring about a populist uprising that defeats globalism.

Not sure how murdering a bunch of random Jews in Pittsburgh will do to end globalism either though, but at least the shooter can say he’s smarter than most Alex Jones listeners :lol

[Reck]

Bowers made his disdain for US President Donald Trump known, saying he “did not vote for him” and has never “worn or even touched a MAGA [Make America Great Again] hat.”


Oops

It has been established Trump wasn't hardcore enough for this guy. He's more of a Bannon type of guy.

[hater]

Were those Twitter posts confirmed to be him?

I think so

Its on many news sources

[Will Hunting]

More seriously though, not going to get into a gun control argument, but it is worth noting that most synagogues in this country have a fair amount of security in place because of potential for stuff like this. The synagogue i went to growing up and the 3-4 other ones that I had friends who went to had doors that stayed locked and all visitors needed to be buzzed in. There was also always 1-2 off duty cops during sabbath and other services.

Point of all that being the “If only they had a good guy with a gun!” argument that’s relevant for mass shootings at schools, movie theatres, etc., could very well not apply here. It’d be really unusual for a synagogue to not have any security, especially during sabbath services.

[Will Hunting]

Never mind, just read that there wasn’t any security presence there today.

Its retarded that synagogues need to have so much security in the first place but it’s irresponsible that this place had an open doors policy.

[Reck]

t it’s irresponsible that this place had an open doors policy.

Isn't that the same for all religious grounds?

It's a sad state that we're in that we need places like that guarded.

[Will Hunting]

Isn't that the same for all religious grounds?

It's a sad state that we're in that we need places like that guarded.
Maybe it’s different in Pittsburgh, but my synagogue growing up received some kind of bomb or death threat at least once a week, as did most of the other ones in the Phoenix area, and as a result it had beefed up security.

[TSA]

I think that's a false premise.

If you believe Reck was totes serious about that, you're an unbelievable snowflake.

You believed Darrin was disappointed that none of the bombs blew up and killed any targets, what does that make you?

[Pavlov]

You believed Darrin was disappointed that none of the bombs blew up and killed any targets, what does that make you?
He told me he wasn't disappointed. I believe him.

[Spurtacular]

Not making light of what this guy did, but I’ll at least give him credit for criticizing the hilarious notion that a multi-billionaire who’s various businesses have utilized immigrant labor and overseas labor is going to bring about a populist uprising that defeats globalism.

Not sure how murdering a bunch of random Jews in Pittsburgh will do to end globalism either though, but at least the shooter can say he’s smarter than most Alex Jones listeners :lol

If you really don't get it, you should consider changing your online persona.

[Kim Jong-il]

You can always tell by the uncomfortable reaction from onlookers how personal the subject matter became.
This is coming from the guy who fantasizes elaborate gay sex scenarios between other posters :lmao

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056362626077220865

Paypal and their hosting company cut ties with Gab because the shooter had a profile on there. The shooter had a profile on many social media sites. This was a new hosting company. Microsoft Azure was the previous company but they didn't like Gab's allowance of free speech.

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056366503467970561

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056366508094324737

[Nathan89]

Gab just raised 1mil crowdfunding and now get silenced. Hopefully they come back stronger than ever.

[Winehole23]

I asked why they were called. The obvious answer is because they could neutralize the shooter and perhaps save lives. They would have been called even if they were unarmed, but they intentionally are not unarmed. They are not awaiting a Utopian society - they deal with the society we have now.

Why then is it wrong to suggest anticipating these kinds of attacks and being prepared for them is prudent? Does it shatter your imaginary security bubble?
A church or temple needn't be like a Mexican bank, with a bunch of guys with shotguns standing around.

Is that your utopia?

[DMC]

This is coming from the guy who fantasizes elaborate gay sex scenarios between other posters :lmao

Alt #58 coming to the rescue of the mansel in distress :lol

[Winehole23]

Would that even be desirable?

Fuck the tyranny of what is. It can be different.

[Winehole23]

Has been in the past, will be in the future.

[Nathan89]

Oh, Gab was also blocked from the google and apple app store. Big tech sure does hate free speech. Pathetic companies going out their way to prevent that site from growing.

[DMC]

A church or temple needn't be like a Mexican bank, with a bunch of guys with shotguns standing around.

Is that your utopia?

Explain how you'd prevent it, because I deal in reality.

[DMC]

Would that even be desirable?

Fuck the tyranny of what is. It can be different.


Has been in the past, will be in the future.
Is this one thought?

[DMC]

If you really don't get it, you should consider changing your online persona.
I think if anyone here gets it, it's Will Hunting

[DMC]

Isn't that the same for all religious grounds?

It's a sad state that we're in that we need places like that guarded.

Why? We guard gold reserves and banks. There nothing in there that cannot be replaced.

[DMC]

He told me he wasn't disappointed. I believe him.

:lol you always step back in line when you're cornered.

[Nathan89]

https://twitter.com/getongab/status/1056384624899715073

Stripe, Paypal, Microsoft, Joylent, Google, and Apple have now all tried to impede free speech online. Pathetic.

[Winehole23]

Is this one thought?Why not?

History isn't simultaneous and neither are statements.

[DMC]

Why not?

History isn't simultaneous and neither are statements.

I'll take that as a "yes".

The shooting wasn't desirable. This isn't a simulation.

[Reck]

Alt #58 coming to the rescue of the mansel in distress :lol

You’re just a fag. Everyone here knows it.

[Winehole23]

I'll take that as a "yes".

The shooting wasn't desirable. This isn't a simulation.measures of protection are never absolute.

Your faith in the absolutism of the present is astonishing.

[DMC]

You’re just a fag. Everyone here knows it.
That's telling me!

[DMC]

I'll take that as a "yes".

The shooting wasn't desirable. This isn't a simulation.measures of protection are never absolute.

Your faith in the absolutism of the present is astonishing.

Again with the riddles.

[Reck]

That's telling me!

Relegated to fake quoting derp style. Makes sense. He’s your retarded off spring.

[DMC]

Relegated to fake quoting derp style. Makes sense. He’s your retarded off spring.

Didn't change your quote.

[DMC]

Winehole, you seem only interested in moving forward with your narrative. You still need to address these things:

1. Trump blaming the temple
2. How would you prevent this from happening again?
3. Why is the Mexican bank guarded by guys with shotguns?
4. Why were the police called during this event?

[Reck]

Didn't change your quote.

The name is part of it, butt pirate.

[Winehole23]

Again with the riddles.that the only solution you can conjure is guns in temples says something about you.

that the temples don't want that says something about the temples.

vive la difference.

[DMC]

The name is part of it, butt pirate.

Your user name has nothing to do with what you said.

You're not very bright. It's been pointed out that your odd use of spelling and grammar (like saying "off spring" instead of "offspring") likely indicates English isn't your first language, but I think you're just not well educated.

[DMC]

that the only solution you can conjure is guns in temples says something about you.

that the temples don't want that says something about the temples.

vive la difference.

The fact you've ignored basically every question posed to you in favor of a truncated version and a one line riddle response tells me you're out of your depth.

Interesting that the temples do have security for many events, since they don't want security. No one wants it. No one wants to be gunned down either though.

[Reck]

Your user name has nothing to do with what you said.

You're not very bright. It's been pointed out that your odd use of spelling and grammar (like saying "off spring" instead of "offspring") likely indicates English isn't your first language, but I think you're just not well educated.

You still changed it, fattie. Bad night for you and your ilk.

[DMC]

You still changed it, fattie. Bad night for you and your ilk.

You're very upset.

[Winehole23]

The fact you've ignored basically every question posed to you in favor of a truncated version and a one line riddle response tells me you're out of your depth.

Interesting that the temples do have security for many events, since they don't want security. No one wants it. No one wants to be gunned down either though.What question did I ignore? I didn't knock temple security, Donald Trump did and so do you, apparently.

I acknowledged the necessity of police, what more do you want?

[Winehole23]

I'll answer your question, what is it?

[Reck]

You're very upset.

lol I'm just in tears right now.

[DMC]

Why should they? They didn't do or say it.


Why did the police show up since guns weren't the answer?


You're not saying guns weren't the answer but you're saying Trump was wrong to say guns were the answer? Guns were called in a bit late. Had there been armed security this event likely never takes place.

So two options, choose the most realistic:

1. Ban all guns and ensure no one who could ever commit an act like this has access to a firearm (which means basically everyone)
2. Secure large gatherings of unarmed people using armed people (you know, the the federal government does for themselves)




Why were the cops called?



Why then is it wrong to suggest anticipating these kinds of attacks and being prepared for them is prudent? Does it shatter your imaginary security bubble?


What question did I ignore? I didn't knock temple security, Donald Trump did and so do you, apparently.

I acknowledged the necessity of police, what more do you want?

Take your pick..

You didn't say why the cops were called. Acknowledging the "necessity of" is a cop out (no pun intended). Why are they necessary?

Sorry I have to walk you through this Socratic method style, but you tend to dart one way then another.

Finally, what would you do you prevent these events from happening in the future? Not like 100 years from now, but like next week.

[DMC]

lol I'm just in tears right now.

Sling a few more "fag" and "butt pirate" names at me. That should help until you can acquire lithium.

[Winehole23]

Winehole, you seem only interested in moving forward with your narrative. You still need to address these things:

1. Trump blaming the temple
2. How would you prevent this from happening again?
3. Why is the Mexican bank guarded by guys with shotguns?
4. Why were the police called during this event?In reverse order:

The police were called because there was a shooting.

The Mexican bank in San Miguel is guarded with shotguns probably because a lot of Americans live there, but I saw this in other Mexican banks too. They think it necessary.

I think it's foolish to think recurrences can be prevented, but temples can take whatever measures they think prudent to protect people. This may or may not require people standing around armed in church. That presents its own security problem.

Trump totally blamed the temple, It was practically the first thing he said.

[DMC]

In reverse order:

The police were called because there was a shooting.

The Mexican bank in San Miguel is guarded with shotguns probably because a lot of Americans live there, but I saw this in other Mexican banks too. They think it necessary.

I think it's foolish to think recurrences can be prevented, but temples can take whatever measures they think prudent to protect people. This may or may not require people standing around armed in chruch. That presents its own security problem.

Trump totally blamed the temple, It was practically the first thing he said.

Do you realize everything you just said is simply proof by assertion or circular reasoning?

1. Police were called because the police are armed and sworn to protect. Armed presence was highly desired.
2. The Mexican bank is heavily guarded because there are assets inside that need to be protected
3. Protecting people = preventing recurrences
4. Having cops presents a security problem (unjustified killings by cops). This is why risk assessment is a thing and risk vs reward is also a thing.
5. Trump didn't blame the temple (see how easily I debunked your claim?)

[Winehole23]

does that make any of it wrong or even inaccurate?

except for the Trump utterance.

you glossed it wrong. he did blame the temple.

[Winehole23]

the tribe won't forget that

[DMC]

does that make any of it wrong or even inaccurate?

except for the Trump utterance.

you glossed it wrong. he did blame the temple.

Yes it makes it inaccurate. Yes it makes it wrong.

Quote Trump without paraphrasing.

[Winehole23]

We gloss it differently. Trump called out inadequate security. He called out the temple after a mass shooting. Said the body count would have been lower.

Most unpresidential.

[Winehole23]

So why do you think police were called etc., without resorting to circularity.

Answer your own questions differently.

[ElNono]

Great debate here between DMC and WH.Wish I wasn’t on my phone and could participate more actively and discuss further. I’ll just drop 2c as condensed as possible, hopefully opening some more discussion.

So, it’s very common in these instances to bring this to a redux of how to prevent this entirely, but there’s also value in minimizing casualties even if you can’t outright prevent it. A good example is Japan’s tight gun control which does yield a measurable decrease of instances of these kind of attacks. The counter argument often is people could do just the same with a Katana. But they really can’t. The standoff scenario is not such in that case, and casualties are generally smaller as a result, plus gives LEO generally more security.

On the other hand it’s completely understandable that being a realist to the fact that the bar for changing the 2nd amendment is exceedingly high (as it should generally be for fundamental rights), makes it implicit that there won’t be a way to reach that kind of regulations, and so in those terms, would more guns be a better solution?

In a nutshell, there are qualitative palliatives that could be applied, but realistically might be out of reach (which doesn’t mean they’re not worth pursuing in the long term). The good news is that the general consensus seems to be that this can’t continue unabated. Whether one solution or the other makes more sense or it’s more realistic or practical, the fact we’re looking for a solution indicates we all agree there’s a serious problem.

[Winehole23]

if you think he said something different, you parse it DMC. mine is a reasonable inference from the given.

[DMC]

We gloss it differently. Trump called out inadequate security. He called out the temple after a mass shooting. Said the body count would have been lower.

Most unpresidential.

Since you won't provide a direct quote, I will:



"This is a case where if they had an armed guard inside, they might have been able to stop him immediately...maybe there would be nobody killed." (observation, not placing blame)

And:

"If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better. This is a dispute that will always exist, I suspect, but if they had some kind of a protection inside the temple, uh, maybe it could have been a very much different kind of situation. They didn’t and he was able to do things that unfortunately he shouldn’t have been able to do." (another observation, not blaming the temple)

You're taking liberties with his statement, using confirmation bias in the process. What you're doing is inline with extremely partisan news sources, which is why you probably won't find MSM making such claims.

[Winehole23]

yeah, we don't read that the same way.

you're taking the view most favorable to DJT and calling it objective. I call bullshit.

lol leaning on the MSM as a crutch.

[ElNono]

"If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better”

Except there’s no way to prove that. And it’s stated as a fact. Words do matter, and this is perhaps the biggest beef when you have a bumbling idiot that doesn’t measure or thinks his statements through.

[DMC]

Great debate here between DMC and WH.Wish I wasn’t on my phone and could participate more actively and discuss further. I’ll just drop 2c as condensed as possible, hopefully opening some more discussion.

So, it’s very common in these instances to bring this to a redux of how to prevent this entirely, but there’s also value in minimizing casualties even if you can’t outright prevent it. A good example is Japan’s tight gun control which does yield a measurable decrease of instances of these kind of attacks. The counter argument often is people could do just the same with a Katana. But they really can’t. The standoff scenario is not such in that case, and casualties are generally smaller as a result, plus gives LEO generally more security. But do you want to be like Japan?

Realistically, we can never be like Japan, so that's not a viable answer to a real issue.


On the other hand it’s completely understandable that being a realist to the fact that the bar for changing the 2nd amendment is exceedingly high (as it should generally be for fundamental rights), makes it implicit that there won’t be a way to reach that kind of regulations, and so in those terms, would more guns be a better solution?

I think "more guns" is a misnomer intended to mislead the reader (not your fault). There are people who already own guns who provide security for inanimate objects all the time. Humans should be more important, and yes there's a freedom issue at stake here, but freedom of is often freedom from, and freedom from the threat of being shot dead while you're vulnerable should enable the freedom to worship in peace. It's not an ideal solution, but Utopia isn't happening.


In a nutshell, there are qualitative palliatives that could be applied, but realistically might be out of reach (which doesn’t mean they’re not worth pursuing in the long term). The good news is that the general consensus seems to be that this can’t continue unabated. Whether one solution or the other makes more sense or it’s more realistic or practical, the fact we’re looking for a solution indicates we all agree there’s a serious problem.

The problem will continue because the statistics (which are used when assessing risk vs reward) say that this is highly unlikely to happen in your establishment. Companies/churches and other places where people gather unarmed will spend more on decorations than on security.

[DMC]

"If they had protection inside, the results would have been far better”

Except there’s no way to prove that. And it’s stated as a fact. Words do matter, and this is perhaps the biggest beef when you have a bumbling idiot that doesn’t measure or thinks his statements through.

The argument isn't that he's right but that he's not blaming the temple. He may be the 1st POTUS who doesn't use a word filter or PR person before making a statement.

[Winehole23]

He may be the 1st POTUS who doesn't use a word filter or PR person before making a statement.oh, now you're saying he wasn't aware of what he was actually saying. That's a little different from what you were saying three minutes ago.

[DMC]

yeah, we don't read that the same way.

you're taking the view most favorable to DJT and calling it objective. I call bullshit.

lol leaning on the MSM as a crutch.

I'm not leaning on the MSM as a crutch. I'm saying CNN and others would love nothing more than to call Trump out for it, if they thought it was the case.

[DMC]

oh, now you're saying he wasn't aware of what he was actually saying.

I differentiated the arguments. Do I need to do it again?

[Winehole23]

I differentiated the arguments. Do I need to do it again?We can all see you're giving Donald Trump the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not so sure he deserves that.

[DMC]

We can all see you're giving Donald Trump the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not so sure he deserves that.

Your argument needs to stand on its own. It doesn't.

I can show you many examples of people saying similar things as Trump said that were never misconstrued as blaming the victim.

[Winehole23]

Doing so gives him too little credit for his own words.

[Winehole23]

Your argument needs to stand on its own. It doesn't.Yours stands on bias as well.

[Winehole23]

All statements are subject to interpretation.

[DMC]

Yours stands on bias as well.

I am arguing based on the facts and there's simply no reason to blame the temple. Common sense would dictate that, if anything, Trump was heading off the "gun control" debate questions that were popping up from MSM. Why would they ask those?

[DMC]

All statements are subject to interpretation.

Nothing really exists.

[Winehole23]

I notice you didn't offer your own answers to the questions you posed.

You can't do it without circularity either.

[Winehole23]

Nothing really exists.Says you.

[DMC]

I notice you didn't offer your own answers to the questions you posed.

You can't do it without circularity either.

Sure I did, right under yours.

[DMC]

Says you.

It's up for interpretation.

[Winehole23]

I am arguing based on the facts and there's simply no reason to blame the temple. Common sense would dictate that, if anything, Trump was heading off the "gun control" debate questions that were popping up from MSM. Why would they ask those?your interpretation is the facts, with a wave to common sense which is usually neither.

got it.

[DMC]

Do you realize everything you just said is simply proof by assertion or circular reasoning?

1. Police were called because the police are armed and sworn to protect. Armed presence was highly desired.
2. The Mexican bank is heavily guarded because there are assets inside that need to be protected
3. Protecting people = preventing recurrences
4. Having cops presents a security problem (unjustified killings by cops). This is why risk assessment is a thing and risk vs reward is also a thing.
5. Trump didn't blame the temple (see how easily I debunked your claim?)


I notice you didn't offer your own answers to the questions you posed.

You can't do it without circularity either.

[DMC]

your interpretation is the facts, with a wave to common sense which is usually neither.

got it.

You're not interested in discussion. You had your mind made up from the start.

[Winehole23]

you substituted your circularities for mine.

you call that a win?

[Winehole23]

You're not interested in discussion. You had your mind made up from the start.actually, both of us are still talking.

is it already over in your mind?

[Winehole23]

because I do not agree with you, does not mean that I have not heard you, nor that I have misunderstood.

[DMC]

you substituted your circularities for mine.

you call that a win?

You keep putting words in my mouth.

My responses aren't circular reasoning. I said why the cops were called, not what event led to it. We already knew that.

I said why the bank is heavily guarded (assets that needed protection)

Both of these lead to one thing, in both instances deadly force or the threat of it was selected to protect precious things. In neither case did anyone petition their representative for tighter gun laws.

[ElNono]

The argument isn't that he's right but that he's not blaming the temple. He may be the 1st POTUS who doesn't use a word filter or PR person before making a statement.

But by making that statement a fact, he tangentially is blaming the temple (if not outright). We could build this as a pseudo mathematical proof and it would come up right away as a matter of logic.

[DMC]

because I do not agree with you, does not mean that I have not heard you, nor that I have misunderstood.

I don't consider disagreement to mean that. I consider the fact that you've stated on multiple occasions things I have already debunked - things you ignored. Then you fell back on "everything requires interpretation" which is damn near a solipsism. That's where you figuratively say "we'll agree to disagree.. despite the evidence".

[Winehole23]

you've not debunked anything

[Winehole23]

ok, what do you think you've debunked?

[Winehole23]

you seem to think the president is not responsible for the obvious connotations of what he says.

I think he knows what the connotations are and is responsible for them. DJT is a cunning political animal.

he's not dumb.

[Winehole23]

he got there with slant rhyme racism and xenophobia.

the current carries him along.

[Winehole23]

it wasn't an accident that he blamed the temple for inadequate security.

[Winehole23]

(two separate statements there, in case you were wondering)

[DMC]

But by making that statement a fact, he tangentially is blaming the temple (if not outright). We could build this as a pseudo mathematical proof and it would come up right away as a matter of logic.

He said in the very next sentence "uh maybe it could have been..."

Was the MSM blaming gun control legislation when they asked him the question?


Do you think he was blaming the temple? If not, why?

[DMC]

you've not debunked anything


ok, what do you think you've debunked?


you seem to think the president is not responsible for the obvious connotations of what he says.

I think he knows what the connotations are and is responsible for them. DJT is a cunning political animal.

he's not dumb.


he got there with slant rhyme racism and xenophobia.

the current carries him along.


it wasn't an accident that he blamed the temple for inadequate security.


(two separate statements there, in case you were wondering)

All these posts with not a single quote. I don't know how to even address these.

DJT isn't even a politician before 2016. Calling him a "cunning political animal" is a huge stretch.

The rest of your posts illustrate that you cannot discuss this objectively.

[ElNono]

But do you want to be like Japan?

Realistically, we can never be like Japan, so that's not a viable answer to a real issue.

I would want to at a personal level. I feel we would be better for it in this particular problem.
We clearly can be, but realistically not in the immediate.


I think "more guns" is a misnomer intended to mislead the reader (not your fault). There are people who already own guns who provide security for inanimate objects all the time. Humans should be more important, and yes there's a freedom issue at stake here, but freedom of is often freedom from, and freedom from the threat of being shot dead while you're vulnerable should enable the freedom to worship in peace. It's not an ideal solution, but Utopia isn't happening.

I don’t think there’s anything misleading about the advocacy of fighting crime with guns outside those available to LEO. I also don’t think it’s disingenious to provide that as an alternate solution for the immediate, considering the current political and law limitations. I am skeptical, because throughout history it just hasn’t been a provable deterrent or effective way to handle this. And if we go to risk assessment, I think we both would agree that adding more punch to the pack is, at least, unintuitive.


The problem will continue because the statistics (which are used when assessing risk vs reward) say that this is highly unlikely to happen in your establishment. Companies/churches and other places where people gather unarmed will spend more on decorations than on security.

Well, we do and spend a whole lot in statistical nuances (you’re a traveler, you know what I mean). It can certainly be argued (and I’ve done so in the past), that it’s just no good ROI there and we should just live with the statistical noise. But these are clearly high impact events that are easily politically exploited, so I expect them to continue to be high profile, despite what logic would indicate.

[ElNono]

He said in the very next sentence "uh maybe it could have been..."

Was the MSM blaming gun control legislation when they asked him the question?

Do you think he was blaming the temple? If not, why?

I don’t think he actively might’ve been (and this is certainly up for debate), but that doesn’t mean he didn’t. This is why a lot of us (you included), like to use words such as ‘likely’ or ‘generally’, etc.

I mean, let’s just say it was Fox & Friends asking the same questions, do you think his response would’ve been different? The interviewer reaction or follow up questions might be, but what you quoted comes to me as a dogmatic absolutist response, which if taken as the de facto solution to this problem, it automatically means whoever is not doing that is wrong.

[DMC]

I would want to at a personal level. I feel we would be better for it in this particular problem.
We clearly can be, but realistically not in the immediate.


The problem with that type of suggestion is that you cannot surgically implant the aspect of Japanese culture you want into the American mainstream. You either want to be just like Japan or you don't. This includes racial demographics and rights/laws/religions.

It's like wanting your hot 110lb blonde GF to eat pizza and slam beer like the 250lb chick across the hall, but keep her figure and feminine ways.


I don’t think there’s anything misleading about the advocacy of fighting crime with guns outside those available to LEO. I also don’t think it’s disingenious to provide that as an alternate solution for the immediate, considering the current political and law limitations. I am skeptical, because throughout history it just hasn’t been a provable deterrent or effective way to handle this. And if we go to risk assessment, I think we both would agree that adding more punch to the pack is, at least, unintuitive.

The counter argument to my statement is that people aren't trustworthy enough to have them armed. The repercussions of that stance is that only the shooter is armed. It's not like you have the choice between quiet evening of unarmed people vs everyone packing heat. It's that you have the choice between the ability to react vs the inability to react. People tend to create a scenario where no threat exists which automatically makes the gun holder the biggest threat, even if that gun holder has no bad intentions. That's a different scenario than what we are trying to avoid, which is a group of people trapped like fish in a barrel with the shooter having as much free time as needed to kill each one, go outside and reload, go back in and continue. Even if the armed resistance failed to stop the shooter, there should be the ability to react, not just cower and die.


Well, we do and spend a whole lot in statistical nuances (you’re a traveler, you know what I mean). It can certainly be argued (and I’ve done so in the past), that it’s just no good ROI there and we should just live with the statistical noise. But these are clearly high impact events that are easily politically exploited, so I expect them to continue to be high profile, despite what logic would indicate.Yes but when these establishments, including public schools, sit down for budgeting, they use statistics and probability to decide who gets the money. When politicians divert lottery winnings away from public schools to fund things like juvenile detention centers, you get safer criminals and more at-risk law abiding kids.

[DMC]

I don’t think he actively might’ve been (and this is certainly up for debate), but that doesn’t mean he didn’t. This is why a lot of us (you included), like to use words such as ‘likely’ or ‘generally’, etc.

Because we cannot be certain, but it doesn't make sense that he would intentionally blame the temple any more than blaming lack of seatbelts for a drunk driving death should stem from a comment like "had he been wearing his seatbelt he's probably alive today. You cannot trust other drivers, so wear your seat belt" It's just saying there are ways to mitigate it.


I mean, let’s just say it was Fox & Friends asking the same questions, do you think his response would’ve been different? The interviewer reaction or follow up questions might be, but what you quoted comes to me as a dogmatic absolutist response, which if taken as the de facto solution to this problem, it automatically means whoever is not doing that is wrong.
No. His response would have been the same. The question is a canned one and the response is a canned one. Two talking points that totally dismiss the event that just occurred.

[ElNono]

The problem with that type of suggestion is that you cannot surgically implant the aspect of Japanese culture you want into the American mainstream. You either want to be just like Japan or you don't. This includes racial demographics and rights/laws/religions.

It's like wanting your hot 110lb blonde GF to eat pizza and slam beer like the 250lb chick across the hall, but keep her figure and feminine ways.

I never found that argument persuasive. We don’t want to be Japan, we want to take some (most?) good things from Japan’s gun policies and adopt them as our own. IE: There’s nothing culturally preventing us from having gun owners undergo a strict psychological evaluation every 2 years, or routine inspection of how they secure their weapons, etc. However, it’s arguably too big a burden impeding the excercise of a constitutional right, and so unless you can turn the right into a privilege, it really can’t realistically happen. But there are mechanisms to do that, so I am reluctant to say never, even if the current statistical probability is slim.


The counter argument to my statement is that people aren't trustworthy enough to have them armed. The repercussions of that stance is that only the shooter is armed. It's not like you have the choice between quiet evening of unarmed people vs everyone packing heat. It's that you have the choice between the ability to react vs the inability to react. People tend to create a scenario where no threat exists which automatically makes the gun holder the biggest threat, even if that gun holder has no bad intentions. That's a different scenario than what we are trying to avoid, which is a group of people trapped like fish in a barrel with the shooter having as much free time as needed to kill each one, go outside and reload, go back in and continue. Even if the armed resistance failed to stop the shooter, there should be the ability to react, not just cower and die.

Yet the vast majority of people choose not to be armed, despite being fully aware of their vulnerability. And rationally speaking, at least in first world countries, the odds of being gunned down and/or being in such a situation are statistically smaller than being killed by a drunk driver (where people are generally as vulnerable, gun or not)

One could even argue that society has evolved from everyone having a weapon into societies that solve their grievances through much more civilized means. Clearly there’s still bad actors, and that’s why we’ve come up with institutions like the trained military and LE so we don’t have to function constantly thinking about personally tackling crime. The caveat is obviously that there will always be a statistical amount of crime (which there is with both approaches).

Now I’m not going to deride people that want to be proactive about different scenarios, as statistically insignificant as they might be, but I do have concerns about preparedness, and specifically the bar being so low that they become public hazards on their own.


Yes but when these establishments, including public schools, sit down for budgeting, they use statistics and probability to decide who gets the money. When politicians divert lottery winnings away from public schools to fund things like juvenile detention centers, you get safer criminals and more at-risk law abiding kids.

I don’t have a counter argument to that point.

[ElNono]

Because we cannot be certain, but it doesn't make sense that he would intentionally blame the temple any more than blaming lack of seatbelts for a drunk driving death should stem from a comment like "had he been wearing his seatbelt he's probably alive today. You cannot trust other drivers, so wear your seat belt" It's just saying there are ways to mitigate it.

But seatbelts are a demonstrable way to massively reduce car accident deaths. And the word ‘probably’ in your sentence still admits they’re not infallible. Point being, ignorance is not (or should not be) a shield. This is more akin to religious people stating as a matter of fact that bad things happen to other people because they don’t follow their dogma. It’s both not factual and it implicitly blames the victim.


No. His response would have been the same. The question is a canned one and the response is a canned one. Two talking points that totally dismiss the event that just occurred.

Whether it’s canned or not, it’s still not a correct answer. Yes, media can be boring rehashing this stuff over and over whenever this stuff happens, and the political stakes will be laid on the ground, but really, let’s call a spade a spade.

[DMC]

I never found that argument persuasive. We don’t want to be Japan, we want to take some (most?) good things from Japan’s gun policies and adopt them as our own. IE: There’s nothing culturally preventing us from having gun owners undergo a strict psychological evaluation every 2 years, or routine inspection of how they secure their weapons, etc. However, it’s arguably too big a burden impeding the excercise of a constitutional right, and so unless you can turn the right into a privilege, it really can’t realistically happen. But there are mechanisms to do that, so I am reluctant to say never, even if the current statistical probability is slim.

Japan historically had no real gun ownership for citizens. This differs wildly from the US. You cannot just ignore these kinds of facts and only focus on the gun related murder rates. There are no mechanisms to make the things you propose have any real effect, only that they could be instituted if the bill of rights was ignored. Culture and demographics mean everything.


Yet the vast majority of people choose not to be armed, despite being fully aware of their vulnerability. And rationally speaking, at least in first world countries, the odds of being gunned down and/or being in such a situation are statistically smaller than being killed by a drunk driver (where people are generally as vulnerable, gun or not)

One could even argue that society has evolved from everyone having a weapon into societies that solve their grievances through much more civilized means. Clearly there’s still bad actors, and that’s why we’ve come up with institutions like the trained military and LE so we don’t have to function constantly thinking about personally tackling crime. The caveat is obviously that there will always be a statistical amount of crime (which there is with both approaches).

Now I’m not going to deride people that want to be proactive about different scenarios, as statistically insignificant as they might be, but I do have concerns about preparedness, and specifically the bar being so low that they become public hazards on their own.


This is why we still have issues today. From a distance it's only a statistic. If you were in that room when the shooter was coming around, you'd probably think differently about it.

The "public hazard" argument was used when CHL was first introduced in Texas. There was going to be blood in the streets, road rage killings galore. It never happened. Then, when open carry was passed... people were going to be like gangs of marauders, carrying openly around town like bandits. It never happened. I've never seen anyone carrying openly other than an LEO since the law was passed. I've never carried openly either even though I have the full legal right. So this fear for the public safety is a bit unfounded. What's not unfounded is the fact that large, unarmed groups are targets for psychopaths because they want the highest production of their intended target with the least chance of being shot or stopped before they inflict heavy casualties, or that the cops historically pick up the pieces, they don't prevent these shootings. That means there's no protection against these assholes. Eventually tt doesn't matter what the law makers decide, my life is more valuable than my spotless criminal record.



I don’t have a counter argument to that point.
OK

[DMC]

But seatbelts are a demonstrable way to massively reduce car accident deaths. And the word ‘probably’ in your sentence still admits they’re not infallible. Point being, ignorance is not (or should not be) a shield. This is more akin to religious people stating as a matter of fact that bad things happen to other people because they don’t follow their dogma. It’s both not factual and it implicitly blames the victim.



Whether it’s canned or not, it’s still not a correct answer. Yes, media can be boring rehashing this stuff over and over whenever this stuff happens, and the political stakes will be laid on the ground, but really, let’s call a spade a spade.

I think you're abandoning the argument when you say "call a spade a spade". You're presuming to be right by default and that I just won't admit it.

There is no correct answer to a loaded question about a topic that the media knows full well what his response will be. If he were to say "yes, we need to discuss gun control" he just abandoned his campaign promises. If he says "no we don't need to talk about gun control" then we are where we are now. Maybe it's more prudent to just say most here consider Trump an idiot (but somehow an evil genius at the same time) and so he's going to be the antagonist in every instance, thus automatically guilty.

[Pavlov]

Gab just raised 1mil crowdfunding and now get silenced. Hopefully they come back stronger than ever.Are you on Gab, Nathan?

What's your handle there?

[ElNono]

Japan historically had no real gun ownership for citizens. This differs wildly from the US. You cannot just ignore these kinds of facts and only focus on the gun related murder rates. There are no mechanisms to make the things you propose have any real effect, only that they could be instituted if the bill of rights was ignored. Culture and demographics mean everything.

But that’s not really true. Japan tight grip on gun ownership and regulation starts in 1968, and mostly as a response to disarm the samurai. Yes, they don’t have a 2nd amendment, and that is certainly the biggest roadblock in the US. The US having a gun ownership culture might mean something in the immediate, but it doesn’t have to in the long term. After all, we go through cultural shifts all the time, some taking longer than others.

That said, we don’t need to transplant Japan’s honor system or dressing codes to implement some of their more sound regulatory framework on gun ownership. After all, it’s not illegal to own certain weapons there either, it’s just more burdensome. Is it a pipe dream? Maybe. Could we start working towards something like that? Absolutely. Especially when it comes to starting with ideas. Ie: is the 2nd amendment giving us more security as a right than a privilege? I don’t think it’s an unfair question at all.


This is why we still have issues today. From a distance it's only a statistic. If you were in that room when the shooter was coming around, you'd probably think differently about it.

The "public hazard" argument was used when CHL was first introduced in Texas. There was going to be blood in the streets, road rage killings galore. It never happened. Then, when open carry was passed... people were going to be like gangs of marauders, carrying openly around town like bandits. It never happened. I've never seen anyone carrying openly other than an LEO since the law was passed. I've never carried openly either even though I have the full legal right. So this fear for the public safety is a bit unfounded. What's not unfounded is the fact that large, unarmed groups are targets for psychopaths because they want the highest production of their intended target with the least chance of being shot or stopped before they inflict heavy casualties, or that the cops historically pick up the pieces, they don't prevent these shootings. That means there's no protection against these assholes. Eventually tt doesn't matter what the law makers decide, my life is more valuable than my spotless criminal record.

That’s an appeal to emotion. I mean, we can all agree nobody wants to find themselves in such a situation, as rare as they might be these days, and there’s certainly areas more prone to that, but it doesn’t stop making it an outlier (again, these days. In the past, with more people carrying those situations were more prevalent).

Honestly, I don’t have any reasons to doubt you’re a responsible gun owner. But I also know some people that don’t really fit that criteria (and own guns, even if not CHL holders). Even in your case, I would actually argue it makes sense to revisit that every once in a while. People undergo traumatic situations all the time and mental health issues are not necessarily a hereditary problem. It might not save every victim of gun murder, but if it saves some in the long run, I don’t think the burden is unreasonable, IMO

[ElNono]

I think you're abandoning the argument when you say "call a spade a spade". You're presuming to be right by default and that I just won't admit it.

There is no correct answer to a loaded question about a topic that the media knows full well what his response will be. If he were to say "yes, we need to discuss gun control" he just abandoned his campaign promises. If he says "no we don't need to talk about gun control" then we are where we are now. Maybe it's more prudent to just say most here consider Trump an idiot (but somehow an evil genius at the same time) and so he's going to be the antagonist in every instance, thus automatically guilty.

We both agreed recently that his statement is clearly not factual at this time. That’s what I call incorrect. If he were to say, “well, an armed guard likely could’ve prevented or reduced the damage”, that opens the door to “or not”.

I don’t have an issue with the argument itself insofar that is has not been proven demonstrably false, but that also doesn’t make it automatically demonstrably true.

Now if you argue this is his political cunning talking, then he clearly needs to be more careful with his choice of words, because, as stated, it really does open to interpretations of blaming the victim, and it’s really his fault.

[ElNono]

Fascinating topic, I’ll waive the proverbial white flag momentarily, I’ll catch up later in the day.

[DMC]

But that’s not really true. Japan tight grip on gun ownership and regulation starts in 1968, and mostly as a response to disarm the samurai. Yes, they don’t have a 2nd amendment, and that is certainly the biggest roadblock in the US. The US having a gun ownership culture might mean something in the immediate, but it doesn’t have to in the long term. After all, we go through cultural shifts all the time, some taking longer than others.

That said, we don’t need to transplant Japan’s honor system or dressing codes to implement some of their more sound regulatory framework on gun ownership. After all, it’s not illegal to own certain weapons there either, it’s just more burdensome. Is it a pipe dream? Maybe. Could we start working towards something like that? Absolutely. Especially when it comes to starting with ideas. Ie: is the 2nd amendment giving us more security as a right than a privilege? I don’t think it’s an unfair question at all.

It's not the Bill of Privileges. You'd have to have a major revolution, coup, and purge of the gene pool to get anywhere close to what you're suggesting.


That’s an appeal to emotion. I mean, we can all agree nobody wants to find themselves in such a situation, as rare as they might be these days, and there’s certainly areas more prone to that, but it doesn’t stop making it an outlier (again, these days. In the past, with more people carrying those situations were more prevalent).

The entire subject is an appeal to emotion. In the grand scheme of crime/deaths it's not even on the radar yet we only discuss gun control when these emotional events happen. You cannot very well make it a big deal on day then on day two take the 10 thousand foot view and break out the stats, and hope to not be right back here in a short amount of time with zero progress.


Honestly, I don’t have any reasons to doubt you’re a responsible gun owner. But I also know some people that don’t really fit that criteria (and own guns, even if not CHL holders). Even in your case, I would actually argue it makes sense to revisit that every once in a while. People undergo traumatic situations all the time and mental health issues are not necessarily a hereditary problem. It might not save every victim of gun murder, but if it saves some in the long run, I don’t think the burden is unreasonable, IMOOne person who doesn't fit the criteria killed 11 in that temple.

I respect your thoughts on the matter but I feel they are more wishful thinking than possible solutions. The toothpaste cannot go back into the tube in this country. We should operate with that in mind. We cannot even stop people from killing each other in a city that has all but banned guns. Even in prisons people kill each other and there are armed guards. So we are broken down on the side of the road, at night, in the middle of nowhere and we have the tools we brought with us. We can hope someone brings us a new car or that we find a tool box in the woods, but we'd be best to try to fix the car with the tools available to us.

[Nathan89]

Are you on Gab, Nathan?

What's your handle there?

Yes, I try to support other options besides big tech companies.

[ElNono]

It's not the Bill of Privileges. You'd have to have a major revolution, coup, and purge of the gene pool to get anywhere close to what you're suggesting.

The Bill of Rights was actually passed through the same process that amended and can still amend the constitution. So there’s a way. I don’t think I would particularly see the change in my lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that every one of these episodes don’t put additional mounting pressure to do something about it. It doesn’t even have to be a complete removal of the right, but a more carefully tailored wording would likely go a long way towards making some common sense regulations withstand legal scrutiny. And yes, it might take a fairly large social movement for that to happen.


The entire subject is an appeal to emotion. In the grand scheme of crime/deaths it's not even on the radar yet we only discuss gun control when these emotional events happen. You cannot very well make it a big deal on day then on day two take the 10 thousand foot view and break out the stats, and hope to not be right back here in a short amount of time with zero progress.

You can actually talk about some of this stuff in non-emotional/non-anecdotal ways (ie: we can discuss mental health problems that lead to this, magazine capacities, etc). What makes it useless is that there’s no traction due to the fact that certain people simply don’t want to even address the problem, or at least a problem big enough to be addressed without entering into some slippery slope area. And so this is largely why we keep coming back to this without moving forward in any direction.



One person who doesn't fit the criteria killed 11 in that temple.

I respect your thoughts on the matter but I feel they are more wishful thinking than possible solutions. The toothpaste cannot go back into the tube in this country. We should operate with that in mind. We cannot even stop people from killing each other in a city that has all but banned guns. Even in prisons people kill each other and there are armed guards. So we are broken down on the side of the road, at night, in the middle of nowhere and we have the tools we brought with us. We can hope someone brings us a new car or that we find a tool box in the woods, but we'd be best to try to fix the car with the tools available to us.

Could be a pipe dream. Certainly I don’t see even an attempt to use the available toolbox to at least try to bandaid the problem. There’s a lot of polarization and certainly not a good time for this, but I think public opinion can be swayed over time. At least I’d like to think as civil humans we can do a lot better than this.

[boutons_deux]

" "people" simply don’t want to even address the problem"

people didn't cause the gun proliferation and gun violence problem, and they know they are powerless to solve it.

"people" are powerless to solve any problem, make any progress For The People, not matter how "swayed" their opinions are

Get a fucking clue who runs the USA for profit, and it certainly ain't the "people"

[Winehole23]

the Jews come up to punctuate specific key phrases. Soros: “those who control the levers of power in Washington”; Yellen “global special interests”; Blankfein “put money into the pockets of handful of large corporations.”vST61W4bGm8

[Winehole23]

Fox aired this on the day of the Tree of Life massacre

1056324117329297409

[Winehole23]

in 2017 Trump blamed anti-semitism on Jews trying to make him look bad, a few hours after David Duke said the same thing.


Mr Trump responded by calling the threats "reprehensible, but then added that, "sometimes it's the reverse, to make people or to make others look bad." Mr Shapiro said that he had repeated the word "reverse" a number of times, stressing that the attacks might be perpetuated by Jewish people.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-jews-antisemitic-hate-crimes-false-flag-reverse-david-duke-kkk-ku-klux-klan-a7604801.html

[Winehole23]

The rest of your posts illustrate that you cannot discuss this objectively.You're not discussing it objectively either. A dismissive wave of the hand is just that.

[Winehole23]

A black church in Louisville, Kentucky prevented a massacre by locking the doors.

[boutons_deux]

MAGAbomber

MAGAshooter

Trash's AmeriKKKa

[boutons_deux]

Fox aired this on the day of the Tree of Life massacre

1056324117329297409

Farrell has evidence about his hated Jew Soros?

[Winehole23]

The rest of your posts illustrate that you cannot discuss this objectively.This post demonstrates that you're shielding DJT from responsibility for his own words.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqiDySIX4AA5bwv.jpg

[Winehole23]

see the globe?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqiIobxX0AAWbWm.jpg

[Will Hunting]

:lmao the Soros boogeyman

Still not clear to me why Soros using his wealth/resources to influence politics is so evil when the right has guys like Charles Koch and Sheldon Adelson who have more wealth and pour more money into politics than Soros does.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao the Soros boogeyman

Still not clear to me why Soros using his wealth/resources to influence politics is so evil when the right has guys like Charles Koch and Sheldon Adelson who have more wealth and pour more money into politics than Soros does.

For the VRWC / oligarchy / Repugs, any opposition is illegitimate.

[Winehole23]

I hope DMC sprains his wrist patting himself on the back for his objectivity during the dry run for fascism.

[Winehole23]

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

[boutons_deux]

https://images.dailykos.com/images/604771/story_image/DqjZf_TWwAQj4rB.jpg?1540738935


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/28/1807868/-Pittsburgh-Steelers-revamp-logo-to-reflect-tragedy?utm_campaign=trending

[boutons_deux]

11 People Dead in Pittsburgh, drumpf Jokes About Having "A Bad Hair Day." (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/27/1807738/-11-People-Dead-in-Pittsburgh-drumpf-Jokes-About-Having-A-Bad-Hair-Day)


https://images.dailykos.com/images/604557/story_image/7duab3v9iiw01.jpg?1540673933

Aaron Rupar
(https://twitter.com/atrupar)✔@atrupar
(https://twitter.com/atrupar)
Trump jokes that he considered cancelling speech to FFA

not b/c of the mass shooting in Pittsburgh,

but b/c his hair got wet while talking w/reporters about the shooting.

"At least you know it's mine...

I said, 'maybe I should cancel this arrangement b/c I have a bad hair day.'"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/27/1807738/-11-People-Dead-in-Pittsburgh-drumpf-Jokes-About-Having-A-Bad-Hair-Day?detail=emaildkre

[DMC]

You're not discussing it objectively either. A dismissive wave of the hand is just that.


This post demonstrates that you're shielding DJT from responsibility for his own words.

Did you get it all out?

Please continue with your repository style "see I told you so" posting of tweets and memes.

[boutons_deux]

...

[DMC]

The Bill of Rights was actually passed through the same process that amended and can still amend the constitution. So there’s a way. I don’t think I would particularly see the change in my lifetime, but that doesn’t mean that every one of these episodes don’t put additional mounting pressure to do something about it. It doesn’t even have to be a complete removal of the right, but a more carefully tailored wording would likely go a long way towards making some common sense regulations withstand legal scrutiny. And yes, it might take a fairly large social movement for that to happen.


Consider hate speech, for example. There's a push now to do something about it. Do you think the 1st Amendment will be altered?

We live in a country of people who have no concern for other people. In Japan, people will stand in long lines and wait their turn because they are conditioned over generations to consider the collective and use an honor system. In the US, it's every man for himself and has been since the onset. That will not change with legislation. When you have so many different cultures who fundamentally disagree with one another, all living together, you're going to have issues. Japan has a homogeneous culture and Americans living there often stand out because they bring with them American tendencies to bypass courtesy in favor of being 1st. Individualism is king in the US. We talk about players instead of teams. Players shit on their own teams to get ahead in the game (Kawhi Leonard) and the concept of honor is just a fancy talking point. That won't change in our lifetimes and it's not getting better.


You can actually talk about some of this stuff in non-emotional/non-anecdotal ways (ie: we can discuss mental health problems that lead to this, magazine capacities, etc). What makes it useless is that there’s no traction due to the fact that certain people simply don’t want to even address the problem, or at least a problem big enough to be addressed without entering into some slippery slope area. And so this is largely why we keep coming back to this without moving forward in any direction.

We have talked about it for years. Nothing has changed. We don't move forward because the proposed changes are ineffective placebos ( https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=270618&highlight=gun ) and even those placebos are resisted by conservatives. The suggesting that a full gun ban be considered was treated like a radioactive waste drum because the left is afraid to go there in fear they will isolate a large portion of their voter base.


Could be a pipe dream. Certainly I don’t see even an attempt to use the available toolbox to at least try to bandaid the problem. There’s a lot of polarization and certainly not a good time for this, but I think public opinion can be swayed over time. At least I’d like to think as civil humans we can do a lot better than this.
Public opinion doesn't move the supreme court.

My point is that "someday someone will do something about it" isn't a viable plan. I've asked people here what they would propose as a solution and the large majority of them either refuse to answer or they say something similar to "someone needs to fix it".

[DMC]

11 People Dead in Pittsburgh, drumpf Jokes About Having "A Bad Hair Day." (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/27/1807738/-11-People-Dead-in-Pittsburgh-drumpf-Jokes-About-Having-A-Bad-Hair-Day)


https://images.dailykos.com/images/604557/story_image/7duab3v9iiw01.jpg?1540673933

Aaron Rupar
(https://twitter.com/atrupar)✔@atrupar
(https://twitter.com/atrupar)
Trump jokes that he considered cancelling speech to FFA

not b/c of the mass shooting in Pittsburgh,

but b/c his hair got wet while talking w/reporters about the shooting.

"At least you know it's mine...

I said, 'maybe I should cancel this arrangement b/c I have a bad hair day.'"

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/27/1807738/-11-People-Dead-in-Pittsburgh-drumpf-Jokes-About-Having-A-Bad-Hair-Day?detail=emaildkre




some of the people who post here, like Boutons here, are very similar in approach to those who commit these shootings. Many of you are mentally unstable hermits who spend your lives campaigning for a political cause through mass information reposting.

[Pavlov]

lol DMC

[DMC]

lol DMC

Chumpy upset that a page went by without his narrative rodeo being involved. :lol

[Pavlov]

Chumpy upset that a page went by without his narrative rodeo being involved. :lolDMC upset I laughed at his narrative.:lol