The HORROR of uncoordinated movement!



  • From the Chicago Tribute's coverage of the Oregon college shooting:

    Students describe horror of Oregon shooting: 'Classmates were going every which way'

    Call me callous, but "going every which way" doesn't sound very horrifying to me. In fact, it sounds like the normal experience of attending a college.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Call me callous

    You're so callous.

    Gun laws.

    Popcorn.



  • Who's the pedantic dickweed now?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Forget that, this is all about the WAR ON CHRISTIANITY. My Facebook says so.



  • Seems to be what witnesses are reporting:

    In one classroom, he appeared to single out Christian students for killing, according to witness Anastasia Boylan.

    “He said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,'” Boylan’s father, Stacy, told CNN, relaying his daughter’s account while she underwent surgery to treat a gunshot to her spine.

    “And then he shot and killed them.”



  • @Weng said:

    WAR ON CHRISTIANITY.

    What did Santa ever do..?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Wake me when we're sure he was sparing Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. I can certainly see someone sufficiently deranged and dissatisfied with the entire concept of religion giving a personalized lame absolution like that to everybody.

    And in the unlikely event that occurs, I'm still not going to call one hate crime a war.



  • @Weng said:

    Wake me when we're sure...

    I agree. Still way too early to have a coherent picture of what was going on.



  • I won't stand for this "Waiting for the facts BS".

    He was clearly a Muslim killing the Christians for the crimes committed during the crusades. We should firebomb everyone in a hijab until they learn to love GOD like we do.

    Oh... and ban guns.



  • @Dragoon said:

    Oh... and ban guns.

    Wow, it's good you said that: I was beginning to think you were serious. :stuck_out_tongue:



  • @boomzilla said:

    coherent picture

    @Dragoon said:

    Waiting for the facts

    The facts are as follows:

    • US 2nd amendment is misquoted to ignore the 'militia' part when it comes to owning a gun.
    • Getting a gun is easier than having an abortion.
    • US citizens kill each other more than outsiders from any war.

    Conclusion: 'murica be incoherent.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Shoreline said:

    Conclusion: 'murica be incoherent.

    No. They support the right of unborn children to bear arms.



  • @Shoreline said:

    - US 2nd amendment is misquoted to ignore the 'militia' part when it comes to owning a gun.

    Unfortunately, including by the Supreme Court. The place where it kind of matters.

    @Shoreline said:

    Conclusion: 'murica be incoherent.

    Our Government has the ability to amend the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. (Which isn't actually a special case "thing" at all, it just has a cool name. Those Amendments are no different than any others.) The obviously correct thing to do here would be to amend the Second Amendment and correct the text to allow for whatever gun controls are desired.

    It's just virtually impossible to do in this political climate, and has been for decades.

    @Shoreline said:

    Conclusion: 'murica be incoherent.

    You know, all-told, our Founding Fathers did a pretty goddamned good job of predicting the future and laying the foundation for a nation. (Including creating the ability for the Government to alter its own Constitution as sections grew obsolete.) It's not their fault.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    As an outsider, I find the political landscape in America baffling, especially the whole furore around gun laws.

    Yesterday I read a very interesting news article by the BBC that gave a pretty good account of the situation.

    It's easy to criticise a foreign political system, but our own system (in the UK) has plenty of :wtf:s too.



  • More than ours.

    At least our Constitution is WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER ANYBODY CAN READ AT ANY TIME. For example.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Oh dear...

    :sadface:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    The obviously correct thing to do here would be to amend the Second Amendment and correct the text to allow for whatever gun controls are desired.

    It's just virtually impossible to do in this political climate, and has been for decades.

    The guys who made the Second Amendment were far, far wiser than you'll ever have a hope of being.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Samuel Adams


  • Sam Adams was a drunk.

    SHOCKING REVELATION!: it is not the 18th century anymore.

    The thing is, I'm not even opposed to people owning guns really. I am just overwhelmingly in support of RETHINKING OUR GUN LAWS FROM SCRATCH SO THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THIS CENTURY and reversing the Constitutional Amendment which makes that rethinking currently impossible.

    I'm also disgusted by the NRA.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Sam Adams was a drunk.

    Your ad hominem doesn't invalidate what he said.

    @blakeyrat said:

    SHOCKING REVELATION!: it is not the 18th century anymore.

    Demonstrate human nature has changed.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I'm also disgusted by the NRA.

    And I'm disgusted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns Except For Themselves, and the Brady Campaign To Steal My Liberty.

    The Poles in the Warsaw ghetto would like a word with you. So would Jeanne Assam, Clare Cooper, and a bunch of other people.

    Surveys suggest as many as a couple of million crimes a year are prevented by citizens with guns. Crime statistics bear out that in spite of Barack Obama's being the best gun salesman in human history, a flood of legally-purchased guns coincided with an overall decrease in crime.

    You idiots want to prevent gun crime--and in particular, mass shootings--address those problems. Don't claim you do, but then run around advocating for things that have been proven to have no effect.

    Also: tell me, do you approve of the idea of eliminating the soi-disant gun-show loophole? If so, can you tell me what it is?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @FrostCat said:

    The Poles in the Warsaw ghetto would like a word with you.

    They seem to be mostly complaining about immigrants.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Demonstrate human nature has changed.

    It has.

    Even if it hadn't, gun technology has changed enough that there needs to be a fresh debate about gun ownership in the US.

    @FrostCat said:

    And I'm disgusted by Mayors Against Illegal Guns Except For Themselves, and the Brady Campaign To Steal My Liberty.

    Right; I forgot Mayors LOVE to collect illegal guns. Silly me. That's been all over the news lately.

    @FrostCat said:

    The Poles in the Warsaw ghetto would like a word with you.

    So you need to own guns because the US Government is literally as bad as the Nazi regime? This is your argument?

    Sane.

    @FrostCat said:

    Surveys suggest as many as a couple of million crimes a year are prevented by citizens with guns.

    Hahahahaha.

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

    Hahahah.

    Heh.

    @FrostCat said:

    Crime statistics bear out that in spite of Barack Obama's being the best gun salesman in human history, a flood of legally-purchased guns coincided with an overall decrease in crime.

    Ok, hang on, let me unfold this.

    So Barack Obama's the best gun salesman in human history? H... how? Wha...? I mean I vaguely get that the premise here is that insane people think Obama wants to "take their guns", but considering he's introduced no new gun legislation that's ... literally just insane people. So, ok, one aspect of this sentence: you're insane.

    @FrostCat said:

    a flood of legally-purchased guns coincided with an overall decrease in crime.

    Lots of things coincide with other things; that doesn't demonstrate a causal relationship. For example, crime went down after New York implemented their "broken window" law enforcement strategy. But guess what? At the same time, they also hired THOUSANDS of new police officers. So it's impossible to determine if the reduction of crime was due to the "broken window" strategy, or simply due to the number of cops on the street increasing.

    @FrostCat said:

    You idiots want to prevent gun crime--and in particular, mass shootings--address those problems.

    What problems? The problem of what insane people think about Barack Obama? It's hard to solve insane people problems because, as it turns out, the people are insane.

    @FrostCat said:

    Also: tell me, do you approve of the idea of eliminating the soi-disant gun-show loophole? If so, can you tell me what it is?

    I don't know what it is, so I have no opinion on it.

    Look, I know you've already bucketed me in the "ANTI-NRA YOU ARE MY ENEMY" bucket, because God forbid there be an issue that can't be easily divided into two "sides", but I've said again and again I'm not necessarily anti-gun. I just think the Nation has to have a new gun debate starting from square one and free of the influence of insane people who think Obama is a gun salesman.

    And regardless of the results of that debate, the Second Amendment needs rephrasing. Even if it were only to match current opinion of its meaning. Because it's fucking stupid for one of the "highest laws of the land" to consist of text which is entirely inaccurate.



  • @FrostCat said:

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    ― Samuel Adams “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    ― Samuel Adams

    Gun control doesn't mean denying peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms as per your quote. It may however prevent that some idiot who's to stupid of getting a gun. It could also require people to have some training in both gun use and storage.

    While it is possible that people with guns prevent a lot of crime, you should if the relaxed laws do not cause more crime of opportunity. By this I mean of I'm down a grand I need a quick money grab lets rob the liquor store (might not be the best example but I hope you'll get the point). I'm not saying any sane person would do this. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of crazy folks who got their guns legally.

    Gun control laws are not meant for the good sane people. But they might weeds out some of the lunatics. And in my opinion it is save to err on side of caution.



  • @Shoreline said:

    - US 2nd amendment is misquoted to ignore the 'militia' part when it comes to owning a gun.I have

    FTFY

    @Shoreline said:

    Getting a gun is easier than having an abortion.

    Huzzah! Of course, this depends on the state.



  • @Reddog said:

    I'm not saying any sane person would do this. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of crazy folks who got their guns legally.

    Show me the proposed gun law that would prevent this person from getting a gun. (trick question really, there isn't one). The only situation that it might cover is where they are currently under the care of a physician for a small selection of mental illnesses. Which, if you look at the recent mass shootings, would cover exactly 1 person (the aurora shooting). In this case there is little evidence that an inability to legally acquire a weapon would of deterred him as he was well planned and prepared to inflict a lot of harm outside of firearms.

    @Reddog said:

    Gun control laws are not meant for the good sane people. But they might weeds out some of the lunatics. And in my opinion it is save to err on side of caution.

    Yeah, lets create a set of laws that will do almost nothing. Cost an exorbitant amount of money and be almost unenforceable.
    Most of the time, doing something just to do it turns out poorly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    It has.

    Idiot.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Mayors LOVE to collect illegal guns.

    You should look into how many members of Bloomberg's gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have been convicted of gun-related crimes.

    @blakeyrat said:

    So you need to own guns because the US Government is literally as bad as the Nazi regime? This is your argument?

    No, idiot, but you don't understand nuance. Here's a hint: one reason the US Government isn't as bad as Nazis is the fear of an armed populace. Which was the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.

    @blakeyrat said:

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

    Even the FBI doesn't dispute that, but I would expect someone as ignorant of the issue as you to not believe it.

    @blakeyrat said:

    So Barack Obama's the best gun salesman in human history? H... how? Wha...? I mean I vaguely get that the premise here is that insane people think Obama wants to "take their guns", but considering he's introduced no new gun legislation that's ... literally just insane people. So, ok, one aspect of this sentence: you're insane.

    Gun sales have been at record levels through most of his administration, so yes. But you ignore facts.

    @blakeyrat said:

    So it's impossible to determine if the reduction of crime was due to the "broken window" strategy, or simply due to the number of cops on the street increasing.

    Gee, I wonder if those things might have actually been the same thing.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    So you need to own guns because the US Government is literally as bad as the Nazi regime? This is your argument?

    TDEMSYR

    Also...how do you say it?

    @blakeyrat said:

    It has.

    [CITATION NEEDED]CITE YOUR SHIT

    @blakeyrat said:

    So Barack Obama's the best gun salesman in human history? H... how? Wha...? I mean I vaguely get that the premise here is that insane people think Obama wants to "take their guns", but considering he's introduced no new gun legislation that's ... literally just insane people. So, ok, one aspect of this sentence: you're insane.

    Is "insane" like the opposite of ignorance?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't know what it is, so I have no opinion on it.

    Gun-grabbers usually do have an ill-informed opinion on it.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Look, I know you've already bucketed me in the "ANTI-NRA YOU ARE MY ENEMY" bucket, because God forbid there be an issue that can't be easily divided into two "sides",

    Nah, it's because you've bashed them a whole bunch. You put yourself in that bucket, sonny.
    @blakeyrat said:

    And regardless of the results of that debate, the Second Amendment needs rephrasing. Even if it were only to match current opinion of its meaning. Because it's fucking stupid for one of the "highest laws of the land" to consist of text which is entirely inaccurate.

    No, the problem is that modern people have deliberately misinterpreted it and then lied to you. The militia clause is not intended to restrict who can have a gun. The word "well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means. You are listening to people who have told you that the rest of the first ten Amendments used "the people" to mean the obvious thing everywhere except in this one place. And you're saying that 50 people, considered smart, well-educated, with all kinds of incentive and knowledge of government tyranny, would've written something that just doesn't make sense.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Reddog said:

    Gun control doesn't mean denying peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms as per your quote.

    It certainly does to gun grabbers. Do you understand this? When--repeatedly--some guy who legally bought a gun commits a mass murder, every time, people like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton propose things that they know would not have stopped the last shooting, what else am I supposed to believe? Obama was just praising Australia last week--what did Australia do? Rounded up everyone's guns and took 'em away.

    Sarah Brady herself said "if we could go door-to-door and say "Mr and Mrs America, hand in your guns, we would". If you say that's not what she meant you are either ignorant or a liar.



  • @Reddog said:

    Gun control laws are not meant for the good sane people. But they might weeds out some of the lunatics. And in my opinion it is save to err on side of caution.

    So...what sort of things do you think should be done?

    Our politicians (I don't know where you live) like to talk about vague "common sense policies" that we could enact to prevent stuff. Then they talk about things that already exist or would have near zero effect on anything.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    So...what sort of things do you think should be done?

    There's speculation--I don't know whether it's reasonable or not--that ATF is slow-walking background checks to hassle gun owners. The reason Mercer got his gun was because the law--in an attempt to be fair to the law-abiding says the ATF can't hold up the process forever, and if they don't respond one way or another within 3 days, the sale can go through. So: the ATF needs to step up to the plate and do their job, but the states need to also get information in that would have prevented crazy people from passing the NICS check. That's much more likely to stop mass shootings than more absurd restrictions like "closing the soi-disant 'gun show loophole'".

    For those who keep hearing that term and don't know what it means, it's simple. Let's say you and I are law-abiding citizens, and you want to buy a gun from me. I don't have to make you pass a NICS check--I can just sell you a gun in exactly the same way that I don't need Uncle Sam's permission to sell you my used car or a sofa. On the other hand, gun dealers, you know, people with stores, do have to get everyone who wants to buy a gun from them to pass such a check.

    Now, let's say I go to a gun show. If I want to buy a gun from a dealer, he still has to submit the paperwork for a check! In fact, having gone to a bunch of gun shows, I can tell you the big dealers will have an entire table of people who fill out the forms and submit them. But you see me with my safed AR-15 on my shoulder--meaning to get it in the door, I had to show security that it was unloaded, and usually do something like put a zip tie on it locking it from being used--and ask me if I want to sell it. I look you over, and you don't seem like a kook, so just like if we were outside the store, I can sell that to you without making you do a background check.

    Dealers who try to fake it get caught, and the ATF is harsh on 'em, as it should.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Let's say you and I are law-abiding citizens, and you want to buy a gun from me. I don't have to make you pass a NICS check

    Even then, there are still a lot of private background checks done, at least in my area. CCW is so prevalent in Nebraska that every private seller I've met required the buyer to have a valid CCW permit because that counts as proof of background check. There's no legal obligation for this whatsoever.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Gun sales have been at record levels through most of his administration, so yes. But you ignore facts.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @mott555 said:

    Even then, there are still a lot of private background checks done, at least in my area.

    Oh, you can certainly do the check if you want, as a private seller. You'd be prudent, as a private seller, to attempt to vet your customer as much as possible. I wouldn't sell, say, a pistol to a guy who looked drunk, or made a racial slur or looked like he might be crazy, or a Democrat[1] or something.

    [1] first off, it's a free country so I can refuse to sell to anyone, and second, with the number of Democrats who've expressed fear the gun would "drive them to shoot people with it"--including more than one person I personally know who's said stuff like that--it seems like a reasonable precaution.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @powerlord said:

    @FrostCat said:
    Gun sales have been at record levels through most of his administration, so yes. But you ignore facts.

    Hey, if people say they're afraid Barack Obama will try to take their guns, and they buy a gun before he can, is that causation or just correlation?

    It's almost like you don't know any gun owners.



  • @FrostCat said:

    [1] first off, it's a free country so I can refuse to sell to anyone, and second, with the number of Democrats who've expressed fear the gun would "drive them to shoot people with it"--including more than one person I personally know who's said stuff like that--it seems like a reasonable precaution.

    Unless it's cake. :trolleybus:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @mott555 said:

    Unless it's cake

    Well, yes, but the analogy would have to be a lot more strained, and would involve someone, incomprehensibly, wanting me to do gunsmithing as a wedding present, not just selling something.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Idiot.

    You think human nature is the same now as it was in the 18th century?

    Wow, I.

    I don't even know what to say to that.

    @FrostCat said:

    You should look into how many members of Bloomberg's gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have been convicted of gun-related crimes.

    I don't care enough.

    @FrostCat said:

    No, idiot, but you don't understand nuance.

    Then you admit you're comparing apples to oranges.

    @FrostCat said:

    Here's a hint: one reason the US Government isn't as bad as Nazis is the fear of an armed populace.

    Hahahaha. Cite? Evidence? Even a vague THEORY about this?

    Senator Giffords wasn't shot because she wanted to turn the Government into the Nazis, she was shot because on of the hundreds of thousands of people in her district was a complete nutjob wacko. People don't try to shoot politicians because they oppose their policies; people try to shoot them because they're stark raving mad nutcases.

    And in any case, let's take the extremely hypothetical scenario that the Government did want to turn into the Nazis-- I'm sorry but no matter how many rednecks with rifles you have, the US Military is going to beat them handily. So your idiotic concept doesn't work in reality or theory.

    @FrostCat said:

    Gun sales have been at record levels through most of his administration, so yes. But you ignore facts.

    Right; because gun owners are fucking stupid.

    Pop quiz: has Obama does anything that could be construed as attempting to take someone's guns? Anything? In his entire time in office? Anything at all?

    No. Of course not. Anybody buying guns for that reason is insane. They are divorced from reality. Entirely.

    @FrostCat said:

    Gee, I wonder if those things might have actually been the same thing.

    They were not.

    One was adopting a new policing strategy, the other was hiring more staff. Either could have been implemented independently, and if they had been we'd have a good idea whether the "broken window" strategy was effective. But since they were implemented simultaneously, we have no idea WHY New York City's crime rate went down. You can't do an A/B test if you implement both A and B simultaneously.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Gun-grabbers usually do have an ill-informed opinion on it.

    Because that's what I am?

    Jesus. What's the point. You're not reading ANYTHING I've typed in this thread. I've said multiple times I have no problem with private gun ownership.

    @FrostCat said:

    You put yourself in that bucket, sonny.

    "Sonny?" What the fuck.

    @FrostCat said:

    The word "well-regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.

    That's kind of MY FUCKING EXACT POINT YOU GIGANTIC PIECE OF SHIT.

    If the text is confusing, and IT DEMONSTRABLY IS, then we should amend it to be not-confusing. I don't understand how there could possibly be any debate over that.

    Of course I already said that and you didn't fucking listen because your head is made of solid rock.

    I give up. I'll go talk to a wall, it'll be more stimulating.



  • Two gun topics?:confused:



  • @FrostCat said:

    Hey, if people say they're afraid Barack Obama will try to take their guns, and they buy a gun before he can, is that causation or just correlation?

    Since there's absolutely ZERO reason to think Obama would do that, it means they're INSANE PEOPLE WHO ARE CRAZY AND INSANE.



  • This just in: Sane people see slippery slopes, plan accordingly.





  • Or, maybe instead of crazy and insane, they just paid attention when he keeps yapping about how great Australian gun confiscation is. When the President of the United States praises gun confiscation in his official duties as President, it's not a terrible leap of logic to assume that he wants to attempt it.



  • @Dragoon said:

    This just in: Sane people see slippery slopes, plan accordingly.

    So you admit it's irrational.

    Look, crazy people do crazy things. They're crazy. The crazy things mean nothing. If there are a lot of crazy people doing crazy things like thinking Obama wants to take their guns, well, I can only assume that other crazy people (like, say, Rush Limbaugh, or NRA propaganda, or FreeRepublic, or God knows) are out there telling them to. And they're also idiots.

    I don't accept that as evidence that the crazy behavior has anything to do with public policy. I just see crazy people doing crazy thing, shrug, and say, "they so CRAZY!"



  • @mott555 said:

    it's not a terrible leap of logic to assume that he wants to attempt it.

    Yes it is. Actually.



  • Okay, say a hypothetical President for some reason keeps talking about a hypothetical country's hypothetical ban on Xboxes every chance he gets. What would you think he wants to do?

    <!-- This will go nowhere but oh well -->


  • I admit that people overreact to a given situation. I also admit that people will use quasi-rational arguments to justify (to themselves or others) something they want to do anyway (i.e. buy a lot of guns).

    Is this in it of itself crazy, I don't think its any crazier than anything else humans do on a daily basis. People are fucking nuts, I thought that was well established?



  • Within hours of the gunfire falling silent on the campus of Umpqua Community College in Oregon Thursday, President Obama stepped up to a podium and declared that America should follow the path of our Anglosphere cousins to reduce gun violence.

    “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have
    been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the
    president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain,
    Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent
    it.”



  • @mott555 said:

    What would you think he wants to do?

    Go windsurfing.

    Who cares? Words are words, actions are actions.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    You think human nature is the same now as it was in the 18th century?

    Wow, I.

    I don't even know what to say to that.

    Yes, you big dummy. People have, basically, the same drives as they have since the species existed.

    You know who thought they could change human nature? The Soviets. That didn't exactly work out for them.

    Sure, attitudes can change and stuff, but that's not what I meant.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hahahaha. Cite? Evidence? Even a vague THEORY about this?

    I eagerly await your Draxy failure to guess how this applies to the US government because I didn't draw you a picture.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.