Reply With Quote
Oh the horror of even suggesting that!
Btw, pretty sure this is just creative angle photography. Her shirt actually says " o Kitty" if you went all the way around.I'd say she was as emotionally ed up, unbalanced as Trash.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...s=mcnewsletter
Oh the horror of even suggesting that!
not the horror. just the idiocyOh the horror of even suggesting that!
Tell me what these points mean in the gun conversation if not ultimately a ban on guns?
To borrow a metaphor you guys love to use...
"Drunks shouldn't be allowed to drive"
"YOU WANT TO BAN CARS!"
Philo again didn't answer the question. You're trying to play the logical fallacy card on every turn but you've yet to actually comment on what the alternative would be. That's likely because you simply don't know.
A gun control argument needs to define the level of control. How would gun control have prevented that shooting?
Poor analogy. You said the fact that a gun was used means a point is scored for the anti-gun crowd. I want to know exactly how that works since supposedly you're not after all guns.To borrow a metaphor you guys love to use...
"Drunks shouldn't be allowed to drive"
Frankly my post wasn't even a commentary on gun control or its implications to this specific case. I was simply pointing out to DarrinS that he was misrepresenting the two "sides" of the debate.
These two don't jive with this next one...
On one hand you say "scoring system" and on the next you say "sides".
Which is it?
Since you said "scoring system" then you're inferring that any gun related fatality or mass attack = points for gun control crowd.
No, I didn't say that. I'm not keeping score. That's for you guys.
But if I did believe this was about guns (which I don't), I would make an argument related to access. A discussion could be had about how this person was able to get a gun and whether there should be controls in place to prevent that. So the analogy makes perfect sense, if you're not myopic.
Sure it does.
That's your answer, to just wave it off?
Why even respond?
You're a remote observer who inserts yourself into the discussion without any ties to either side? Hard to believe that since you're a Hillary voter. Funny how many people here claim to be neutral.
How do you prevent access to a gun by someone with a cons utional right to keep and bear arms if not a ban on guns? Had she done anything that mean't she wasn't legally allowed to have a gun?But if I did believe this was about guns (which I don't), I would make an argument related to access. A discussion could be had about how this person was able to get a gun and whether there should be controls in place to prevent that. So the analogy makes perfect sense, if you're not myopic.
Since you seem very interested in defending Darrin's honor, let me paraphrase so you'll more easily understand the exchange.
DarrinS: She's just a nutjob, rather than a radical Islamist or a radical conservative (Spurminator's interpretation), ergo neither tribe can gloat.
Me: Acknowledging that one tribe does typically gloat when attacks happen at the hands of radical Islamists, the primary concern of the other tribe is not usually about political worldview, but about access to guns. Therefore, if someone from that tribe, as you've defined them, decided to gloat, they may still be inclined to do so. Nowhere herein do I suggest that they should do so or that points matter in this game.
Do you follow?
We already prevent certain people from owning guns, and we do not currently have a ban on guns. This is not a difficult concept.How do you prevent access to a gun by someone with a cons utional right to keep and bear arms if not a ban on guns? Had she done anything that mean't she wasn't legally allowed to have a gun?
Re-read the two quotes. DarrisS mentioned political points for "sides" and you barked back that he didn't understand the scoring system. What are these "sides" if not gun control vs 2A? I'm still waiting for you to come back to the middle. You made the comment then you've been back peddling since.
So she should be declared mentally incompetent post-mortem?We already prevent certain people from owning guns, and we do not currently have a ban on guns. This is not a difficult concept.
Ask DarrinS. I interpreted his sides as "This was caused by Islam/blacks/immigrants/etc" vs. "This was caused by angry white conservatives" and disagreed that those are the two sides in instances like these.
It wouldn't really make sense for him to define the tribes as Gun Control vs. 2A and then claim neither side could call scoreboard on a shooting.
I haven't claimed to know the solution in this particular case or if there even was a solution. I'm just saying that preventing dangerous people from gaining access to guns doesn't require a ban on guns, which is what you keep going back to.So she should be declared mentally incompetent post-mortem?
Since you say he doesn't understand the scoring system, I'm still waiting for you to explain it.
However:
Gun control side: "If she didn't have a gun she couldn't have shot anyone including herself"
2A side: "She had a cons utional right to own a gun. You cannot prevent everything and this isn't the 'Minority Report'"
1. How do you determine "dangerous" on a per capita basis?I haven't claimed to know the solution in this particular case or if there even was a solution. I'm just saying that preventing dangerous people from gaining access to guns doesn't require a ban on guns, which is what you keep going back to.
2. The cops talked to her for 20 minutes just hours before the shooting, they didn't determine she was dangerous.
3. Taking away a 2A right because of what you say in a video is akin to taking away a 1A right since you suffered repercussions because you exercised your 1A right.
When shootings happen, scoring is typically either "See? Muslim/Black" or "See? Guns." That's it. I do not condone this scoring system, I merely acknowledge its existence. I did not expect anyone to be this offended by that reality.
I don't dispute any of this, I have only disputed that the complexities of the gun control debate don't require that gun control advocates call for a gun ban.1. How do you determine "dangerous" on a per capita basis?
2. The cops talked to her for 20 minutes just hours before the shooting, they didn't determine she was dangerous.
3. Taking away a 2A right because of what you say in a video is akin to taking away a 1A right since you suffered repercussions because you exercised your 1A right.
That might be one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time.
I don't dispute any of this, I have only disputed that the complexities of the gun control debate don't require that gun control advocates call for a gun ban.
I've read this several times and it makes zero sense. Redundant drivel.
This is just the "U mad" defense.
What is the "see, guns" side doing when they say that if not hinting at the alternative? The alternative is "see, no guns". This seems obvious to me.
Not just like that. The slippery slope isn't a cliff. I'd like to see an explanation of how it's even possible to control anything without preventing someone from getting it.I don't dispute any of this, I have only disputed that the complexities of the gun control debate don't require that gun control advocates call for a gun ban.
You asked me to define the tribes, not to advocate for them. Now you're pulling arguments out of the air so you have something to talk about.
Then review current gun restrictions, because we already do it.Not just like that. The slippery slope isn't a cliff. I'd like to see an explanation of how it's even possible to control anything without preventing someone from getting it.
So when I said "who said anyone wants to ban guns?" why did you and Philo freak out? It sounds like you have zero interest in either debate... now.
Seems now that it's quite possible one of those two sides does want to ban guns, and you obviously don't have a dog in the race.
What is a restriction and why are you relying on euphemisms instead of saying "prevent people from having guns"? You want more people to not have guns. When that doesn't stop gun violence, you'll want even more people on the "no gun" list. Slippery slope that euphemisms don't disguise so well.Then review current gun restrictions, because we already do it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions