Quote from: Luciana on December 05, 2015, 06:57:12 PMQuote from: Scott Weiland is dead on December 05, 2015, 06:55:25 PMIf you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootingShe's using the exact definition of what a mass shooting is. You cannot fault her for the literal definition of what she's presenting.Come onnnnnnnnIt's fucking misleading, and you know it. "Mass shooting" conjures up images of a pasty loon in black attacking a shopping mall or high school, not a violent dispute between drug dealers in the poor part of a major city.
Quote from: Scott Weiland is dead on December 05, 2015, 06:55:25 PMIf you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootingShe's using the exact definition of what a mass shooting is. You cannot fault her for the literal definition of what she's presenting.Come onnnnnnnn
If you use the popular statistical definition of a massacre as a violent crime with 3 or more victims, which conveniently includes most instances of gang and criminal violence.
Treating a Wikipedia definition as if it is the final authority on the definition of a word or phrase is silly, especially one as politically charged as Mass Shooting. When most people hear mass shooting, the assumption is generally that the intent is to commit random mass violence. You're going to give me some bullshit about how it totally isn't and everybody thinks along the same lines as the media so everybody has always had this same definition, but fuck you, I know that's bullshit.
Guns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.But as I said on the last page, a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword.Think the Sandy Hook Massacre would've gone down the same with if that dickfuck had come charging up to the schoolhouse with a scottish claymore?
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.And when you commit this crime with a knife you're far less likely to kill the same amount of people someone with a gun. Let's not be retarded here. Most people shouldn't have guns.
Quote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:19:06 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.But as I said on the last page, a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword.Think the Sandy Hook Massacre would've gone down the same with if that dickfuck had come charging up to the schoolhouse with a scottish claymore?He could have used a bomb - they're banned, aren't they?
Quote from: Luciana on December 05, 2015, 07:18:58 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.No one who isn't an ideologist, wants to outright 'ban' guns. That's a silly concept to even pitch around. People just want some form of control in a country that clearly has a problem with it.Yeah, I'm sure the left was saying the same thing in Australia and the UK, too.You don't want to ban guns. They should just be expensive and difficult to access for all but the wealthy few, and totally out of reach for their actual greater purpose- defense.
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.No one who isn't an ideologist, wants to outright 'ban' guns. That's a silly concept to even pitch around. People just want some form of control in a country that clearly has a problem with it.
]As opposed to what? Would you rather be stabbed or hit by a car?
Public opinion polls are ridiculously easy to skew and mean nothing.
The vast majority of people know absolutely nothing about the causes they support or oppose politically. Those who know something are more often than not underinformed or misinformed.
Further, appeal to majority means jack shit to anybody with a brain, and people with brains are often not members of the majority. Hundreds of years ago I'm sure 90% of people would support a total ban on gay marriage, but that wouldn't make them right.
]I agree wholeheartedly, but I also think attention should be paid to our cultural institutions to see what roles they play in violence, as well.
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:21:17 PMQuote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:19:06 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.But as I said on the last page, a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword.Think the Sandy Hook Massacre would've gone down the same with if that dickfuck had come charging up to the schoolhouse with a scottish claymore?He could have used a bomb - they're banned, aren't they?And explosives also happen to be very easily made with rudimentary materialsBut it's not like he could've come to the school with military grade C4. Home-made plastic explosives are usually pretty shit.
Quote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:23:28 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:21:17 PMQuote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:19:06 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.But as I said on the last page, a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword.Think the Sandy Hook Massacre would've gone down the same with if that dickfuck had come charging up to the schoolhouse with a scottish claymore?He could have used a bomb - they're banned, aren't they?And explosives also happen to be very easily made with rudimentary materialsBut it's not like he could've come to the school with military grade C4. Home-made plastic explosives are usually pretty shit.You could always put more effort into making a better bomb.Also, guns are still quite easily obtainable in places where they are banned, if you are using them for criminal purposes.
Isn't this guy like super pro gun anarchist? I'm not sure it's really worth it to present my side of things if that's the case.
Quote from: Luciana on December 05, 2015, 07:29:24 PMIsn't this guy like super pro gun anarchist? I'm not sure it's really worth it to present my side of things if that's the case.Ad hominem.
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:26:01 PMQuote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:23:28 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:21:17 PMQuote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:19:06 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:17:31 PMGuns really shouldn't be banned, and this is coming from someone in a place where they are. If you're going to commit a crime (murder, for example), you're going to commit a crime, gun or not. Seriously, attack the person, not the weapon.But as I said on the last page, a lot harder to kill a bunch of cunts with a sword.Think the Sandy Hook Massacre would've gone down the same with if that dickfuck had come charging up to the schoolhouse with a scottish claymore?He could have used a bomb - they're banned, aren't they?And explosives also happen to be very easily made with rudimentary materialsBut it's not like he could've come to the school with military grade C4. Home-made plastic explosives are usually pretty shit.You could always put more effort into making a better bomb.Also, guns are still quite easily obtainable in places where they are banned, if you are using them for criminal purposes.Lmao, really now?Because 30 grand is easily obtainable, eh?
Quote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:29:55 PMQuote from: Luciana on December 05, 2015, 07:29:24 PMIsn't this guy like super pro gun anarchist? I'm not sure it's really worth it to present my side of things if that's the case.Ad hominem.That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be saying, "Yeah, well, as you can see, this guy's arguments are stupid as fuck because he too is a stupid fuck."Luc is just saying that it's not really worth the time to argue with someone so far on the opposite end of the spectrum.Please learn your fallacies before you use them.
Luc is just saying that it's not really worth the time to argue with someone so far on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Quote from: Cindo on December 05, 2015, 07:31:14 PMQuote from: KinderEssen on December 05, 2015, 07:29:55 PMQuote from: Luciana on December 05, 2015, 07:29:24 PMIsn't this guy like super pro gun anarchist? I'm not sure it's really worth it to present my side of things if that's the case.Ad hominem.That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be saying, "Yeah, well, as you can see, this guy's arguments are stupid as fuck because he too is a stupid fuck."Luc is just saying that it's not really worth the time to argue with someone so far on the opposite end of the spectrum.Please learn your fallacies before you use them.That's literally what was said, though.
Oh look, I was right.
