Pittsburgh shooting

[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 bull .

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 nuts , 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 bull .

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 subs uted 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.