Another Mass Shooting in California

2,531 Views | 82 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by going4roses
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sp4149 said:

BearNIt said:

Every time that I hear that law enforcement has been involved in a shooting I hold my breath as I have a number of immediate family members involved in law enforcement at various levels. I know the hospital where the officers was taken and I can tell you that they did everything humanly possible to treat and save the lives of all who were injured because that is who they are.

I have questions regarding the POS who started shooting. What was he doing with an assault rifle in his truck driving around? How can a POS like him who had served time for attempted murder even get a gun let alone an assault rifle? ... 1*


Enough of this hiding behind the 2nd amendment and using it to justify the owning of a weapon that is used in a time of war to kill an enemy. How long is it going to be before someone you care about is a victim of a shooting that involves an assault weapon given the current frequency that these shootings are happening? 2 *
1* SoCal has for years had very large gun shows (aka the background check loophole)
During the last year, Crossroads of the West Gun Shows attracted more than half a million guests, more than any other gun show in America. They put on shows at county fairgrounds and convention centers around the west, several within a 60-90 minute drive of where the killer lived. The San Diego County communities got a three month ban on their use of SD County fairgrounds buildings but the gun show won out and are back to hosting their quarterly events.

2* Many Americans have experience with gunshot wounds, the number of daily gun shot injuries would be horrifying elsewhere in the world but we accept it as part of our culture. But Americans do not recognize the difference between a gunshot wound and an assault weapon wound; the amplification of the wound from the entry point of the high speed assault weapon bullet expanding into massive internal injuries and exit void. Maybe some graphic video images of assault weapon's carnage would make the public acknowledge that these are not hunting or sporting weapons.

AS I WROTE EARLIER, a simple solution would be to classify them as weapons of mass destruction (WMD); they have proven more deadly than some other WMDs. The NRA would be harder pressed to advocate ownership of WMDs.


Regarding 1*, how can gun shows sell guns in California that are illegal in California? Wouldn't this be illegal?

Regarding 2*, can you post a link to these pictures that demonstrate that assault weapons are more powerful than rifles of a similar caliber?
1* Gun shows are not regulated the same as brick and mortar gun stores like Walmart, etc..
No record keeping, thorough background checks in many cases. If you don't do a background check, it's easy to sell guns to a felon.

2 * Before I get scientific on you; What was the most strenuous Physics class you had at Cal?
1 , 4, or 10 ?
Not into posting gore and the Fox New/NRA propaganda that bullet hole size equates to body damage is laughable. instead consider -

According to a 2011 report by doctors who had performed autopsies on soldiers killed by gunfire in Iraq, "The velocity of the missile as it strikes the target is the main determinant of the wounding capacity" and "[t]he greater energy of the missile at the moment of impact the greater is the tissue destruction." Indeed, the study found that rounds with a velocity exceeding 2,500 feet per second cause a shockwave to pass through the body upon impact that caused catastrophic injuries even in areas remote to the direct wound.

Using popular ammunition brand Hornady as a comparison point, the ammunition available for the .45 caliber handgun fires at a muzzle velocity of no more than 1,055 feet per second. The .223 ammunition most often used by the AR-15 assault weapon, however, can achieve a velocity of 4,000 feet per second. Some AR-15s are designed to accept 5.56 NATO ammunition; a similar round to the .223 that has a velocity of up to 3,130 feet per second.

According to a report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns on mass shootings that occurred between January 2009 and September 2013, shootings involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines are characterized by a significantly higher death and injury rate:
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

oski003 said:



Are you and Bearister implying that the only way to keep illegal guns out of California and Mexico is a nation-wide ban on such guns because they would be smuggled anyway? Are you arguing that Mexican gun laws and California gun laws do not matter?


Are you actually discussing in good faith? You ask questions and completely ignore the answers only to reformulate the question. It is of course well known that gun control has not eliminated the use of banned firearms because people can move freely about the country. Maybe you should spend five minutes researching the issue and provide us with your honest viewpoint instead of pretending to engage in this aw shucks Socratic method.
.

Yes, in good faith. I have spent time on this. This was a good discussion before the peanut gallery arrived.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149 said:

oski003 said:

sp4149 said:

BearNIt said:

Every time that I hear that law enforcement has been involved in a shooting I hold my breath as I have a number of immediate family members involved in law enforcement at various levels. I know the hospital where the officers was taken and I can tell you that they did everything humanly possible to treat and save the lives of all who were injured because that is who they are.

I have questions regarding the POS who started shooting. What was he doing with an assault rifle in his truck driving around? How can a POS like him who had served time for attempted murder even get a gun let alone an assault rifle? ... 1*


Enough of this hiding behind the 2nd amendment and using it to justify the owning of a weapon that is used in a time of war to kill an enemy. How long is it going to be before someone you care about is a victim of a shooting that involves an assault weapon given the current frequency that these shootings are happening? 2 *
1* SoCal has for years had very large gun shows (aka the background check loophole)
During the last year, Crossroads of the West Gun Shows attracted more than half a million guests, more than any other gun show in America. They put on shows at county fairgrounds and convention centers around the west, several within a 60-90 minute drive of where the killer lived. The San Diego County communities got a three month ban on their use of SD County fairgrounds buildings but the gun show won out and are back to hosting their quarterly events.

2* Many Americans have experience with gunshot wounds, the number of daily gun shot injuries would be horrifying elsewhere in the world but we accept it as part of our culture. But Americans do not recognize the difference between a gunshot wound and an assault weapon wound; the amplification of the wound from the entry point of the high speed assault weapon bullet expanding into massive internal injuries and exit void. Maybe some graphic video images of assault weapon's carnage would make the public acknowledge that these are not hunting or sporting weapons.

AS I WROTE EARLIER, a simple solution would be to classify them as weapons of mass destruction (WMD); they have proven more deadly than some other WMDs. The NRA would be harder pressed to advocate ownership of WMDs.


Regarding 1*, how can gun shows sell guns in California that are illegal in California? Wouldn't this be illegal?

Regarding 2*, can you post a link to these pictures that demonstrate that assault weapons are more powerful than rifles of a similar caliber?
1* Gun shows are not regulated the same as brick and mortar gun stores like Walmart, etc..
No record keeping, thorough background checks in many cases. If you don't do a background check, it's easy to sell guns to a felon.

2 * Before I get scientific on you; What was the most strenuous Physics class you had at Cal?
1 , 4, or 10 ?
Not into posting gore and the Fox New/NRA propaganda that bullet hole size equates to body damage is laughable. instead consider -

According to a 2011 report by doctors who had performed autopsies on soldiers killed by gunfire in Iraq, "The velocity of the missile as it strikes the target is the main determinant of the wounding capacity" and "[t]he greater energy of the missile at the moment of impact the greater is the tissue destruction." Indeed, the study found that rounds with a velocity exceeding 2,500 feet per second cause a shockwave to pass through the body upon impact that caused catastrophic injuries even in areas remote to the direct wound.

Using popular ammunition brand Hornady as a comparison point, the ammunition available for the .45 caliber handgun fires at a muzzle velocity of no more than 1,055 feet per second. The .223 ammunition most often used by the AR-15 assault weapon, however, can achieve a velocity of 4,000 feet per second. Some AR-15s are designed to accept 5.56 NATO ammunition; a similar round to the .223 that has a velocity of up to 3,130 feet per second.

According to a report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns on mass shootings that occurred between January 2009 and September 2013, shootings involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines are characterized by a significantly higher death and injury rate:


Regarding 1*, so the issue is background checks, not selling illegal guns?

Regarding 2*, what physics class I took is irrelevant. Assault weapons inflict more damage because they fire fast with a lot of ammo. They obviously are more powerful than handguns as most hunting rifles are. How do we then define an assault rifle or weapon so that we have an effective ban?

How can this definition be made to fit into a WMD? https://www.dhs.gov/topic/weapons-mass-destruction
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sp4149 said:

BearNIt said:

Every time that I hear that law enforcement has been involved in a shooting I hold my breath as I have a number of immediate family members involved in law enforcement at various levels. I know the hospital where the officers was taken and I can tell you that they did everything humanly possible to treat and save the lives of all who were injured because that is who they are.

I have questions regarding the POS who started shooting. What was he doing with an assault rifle in his truck driving around? How can a POS like him who had served time for attempted murder even get a gun let alone an assault rifle? ... 1*


Enough of this hiding behind the 2nd amendment and using it to justify the owning of a weapon that is used in a time of war to kill an enemy. How long is it going to be before someone you care about is a victim of a shooting that involves an assault weapon given the current frequency that these shootings are happening? 2 *
1* SoCal has for years had very large gun shows (aka the background check loophole)
During the last year, Crossroads of the West Gun Shows attracted more than half a million guests, more than any other gun show in America. They put on shows at county fairgrounds and convention centers around the west, several within a 60-90 minute drive of where the killer lived. The San Diego County communities got a three month ban on their use of SD County fairgrounds buildings but the gun show won out and are back to hosting their quarterly events.

2* Many Americans have experience with gunshot wounds, the number of daily gun shot injuries would be horrifying elsewhere in the world but we accept it as part of our culture. But Americans do not recognize the difference between a gunshot wound and an assault weapon wound; the amplification of the wound from the entry point of the high speed assault weapon bullet expanding into massive internal injuries and exit void. Maybe some graphic video images of assault weapon's carnage would make the public acknowledge that these are not hunting or sporting weapons.

AS I WROTE EARLIER, a simple solution would be to classify them as weapons of mass destruction (WMD); they have proven more deadly than some other WMDs. The NRA would be harder pressed to advocate ownership of WMDs.


Regarding 1*, how can gun shows sell guns in California that are illegal in California? Wouldn't this be illegal?

Regarding 2*, can you post a link to these pictures that demonstrate that assault weapons are more powerful than rifles of a similar caliber?
There is very little difference in the two examples an assault weapon vs. a rifle of a similar caliber. The difference is the number of people that can be wounded in a mass shooting in a given amount of time. It's the kinetic energy of the projectile that does the damage in both instances. Take a look at these articles and pictures that will give you a more complete understanding of what I mean.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html?login=email&auth=login-email

https://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/1543-2165%282006%29130%5B1283%3APPOGW%5D2.0.CO%3B2

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/09/bullet-injuries-wounds-trauma-surgery/
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with you that it the combination of caliber, semi-automatic ability, and size of clip that makes these rifles so dangerous.

With that being said, maybe we can
a) ban clips larger than x; and
b) ban the combination of semi-automatic ability and a certain caliber.

is that possible? practical? If made a wmd, how would you describe the gun that is a wmd so as to only include "assault weapons."

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Report: Trump Invoked in 36 Cases Involving Violence and Threats
Quote:

As ABC News reported Wednesday, there's a growing fraternity of Americans who have committed acts of violence, threatened acts of violence, or committed assault in the name of Trump.

The outlet found 29 cases of people positively echoing Trump's language in relation to an attack and another 7 cases of people committing violent or threatening acts in defiance of him (many targeting Trump's allies in Congress). Among the 29 cases of violent Trump sympathizers, most are white men, ABC News reports, and "the victims largely represent an array of minority groups African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims and gay men."

ABC News went back to find examples of similar incidents during the last two presidencies, each of which was eight years long. They found nothing.
Quote:

ABC News could not find a single criminal case filed in federal or state court where an act of violence or threat was made in the name of President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush.

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Six officers hit by gun owner with AK-47.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A lot of policies and violation of civil rights we take for granted would lead to far-reaching positive outcomes. We could all but eliminate crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancies etc by trampling on civil liberties. But we don't do them.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

A lot of policies and violation of civil rights we take for granted would lead to far-reaching positive outcomes. We could all but eliminate crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancies etc by trampling on civil liberties. But we don't do them.
Precisely what policies and/violations of civil rights would eliminate poverty?

We could start with the following "policy" and tailor it for any situation.

Being a Cal fan: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.


The balance between personal liberty and public good has always been a healthy debate in this country and will likely continue to be. It's just that public opinion seems to be changing quickly on the question of guns, in favor of public safety. This is hardly evidence that freedom in general is under attack.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.


The balance between personal liberty and public good has always been a healthy debate in this country and will likely continue to be. It's just that public opinion seems to be changing quickly on the question of guns, in favor of public safety. This is hardly evidence that freedom in general is under attack.
No it's the logic that improved outcomes, in and of itself, justifies the policy.

So is it public opinion you care about? Americans supported leaning towards public safety over civil liberties after 9/11.

The majority do not support a gun ban (as if that even matters).

You said you want a gun ban because we've lost that privilege (lol, not that it matters, but homicide rates are down). Well screw freedom of speech, we've lost that privilege. Then it's not about that. It's about what the public wants. Well if that's the case then....

You're parroting a moronic idea, then when somebody points out its stupid, it suddenly becomes strawman central, and of course you revert to compromising to gun restrictions. Why would any party compromise with someone whose motive is to curb their civil liberties down to, ideally, the point where it's gone (as it relates to firearms)
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html
Majority supported slavery too.

Can you guys stop pretending all these factors matter in principle to you supporting any given idea or policy...and just argue the policy and ideology you think is best on its own merits?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html


So you think we are being ruled by Nazis and fascists, right? So why would you want the government to take away guns?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html


So you think we are being ruled by Nazis and fascists, right? So why would you want the government to take away guns?
Because I want blood flowing in the streets and all out violence. YUP BRING IT. The dumb will be the first to perish.

So when do the anarchists put on the all black gear, cover they faces, get out the clubs and garbage can lids to fight the man?

In any case the point is...the majority of Americans want assault weapons banned. 50% of the GOP is significant when you consider everything.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html
Majority supported slavery too.

Can you guys stop pretending all these factors matter in principle to you supporting any given idea or policy...and just argue the policy and ideology you think is best on its own merits?
My #1 policy issue that I would argue is that we should have a government that is effective at implementing policies that we have significant agreement on. What we have is a government that implements policies based on lobbyists, political contributions, and political gamesmanship. Add to the problem of money and corruption, the Hastert rule creating a defacto situation where you need a majority of the majority party to agree to something to even have a vote, and Congress does not work as it stands. There are many things that a substantial, bi-partisan majority wants done that we can't get done because of special interests.

And, yes, I would be fine with losing on some issues where I am in the minority.

In this case, polling has demonstrated over and over that a large majority have been in favor of reasonable background checks, red flag laws, and gun licensing. Not having reasonable laws in this area because one lobbyist is so powerful is ridiculous.

I think this poll shows the result. The NRA has been making the slippery slope argument for decades. I would argue that their irrational opposition to absolutely every gun law is driving people into the arms of the opposition.

Polls are absolutely relevant to whether a policy should be adopted. This is one poll. However, if polling consistently shows 67% in favor of an assault weapons ban, it should be done.

Republicans are between a rock and a hard place on this one. They do not want to upset their base, but this is one of several issues that is causing them to lose votes in the suburbs.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear...nah. Rather have to watch Trump and Melania get pee'd on.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Anarchistbear said:

Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html


So you think we are being ruled by Nazis and fascists, right? So why would you want the government to take away guns?
Because I want blood flowing in the streets and all out violence. YUP BRING IT. The dumb will be the first to perish.

So when do the anarchists put on the all black gear, cover they faces, get out the clubs and garbage can lids to fight the man?

In any case the point is...the majority of Americans want assault weapons banned. 50% of the GOP is significant when you consider everything.


Actually I think Trump is more like Colonel
Klink than Hitler.

But this does sum up your Nazi hysteria bull****. The jackboots are in the street but let's tweet something and see how Republicans are polling. The Resistance!
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.


The balance between personal liberty and public good has always been a healthy debate in this country and will likely continue to be. It's just that public opinion seems to be changing quickly on the question of guns, in favor of public safety. This is hardly evidence that freedom in general is under attack.
No it's the logic that improved outcomes, in and of itself, justifies the policy.

So is it public opinion you care about? Americans supported leaning towards public safety over civil liberties after 9/11.

The majority do not support a gun ban (as if that even matters).

You said you want a gun ban because we've lost that privilege (lol, not that it matters, but homicide rates are down). Well screw freedom of speech, we've lost that privilege. Then it's not about that. It's about what the public wants. Well if that's the case then....

You're parroting a moronic idea, then when somebody points out its stupid, it suddenly becomes strawman central, and of course you revert to compromising to gun restrictions. Why would any party compromise with someone whose motive is to curb their civil liberties down to, ideally, the point where it's gone (as it relates to firearms)

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between what I personally WANT and what I WILL SETTLE FOR based on current political realities.

I hope that one day the public will come around to my preference for a full civilian gun ban. Given that is not the reality now, I will settle for other gun control measures that do currently enjoy majority support.

Got it?
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.


The balance between personal liberty and public good has always been a healthy debate in this country and will likely continue to be. It's just that public opinion seems to be changing quickly on the question of guns, in favor of public safety. This is hardly evidence that freedom in general is under attack.
No it's the logic that improved outcomes, in and of itself, justifies the policy.

So is it public opinion you care about? Americans supported leaning towards public safety over civil liberties after 9/11.

The majority do not support a gun ban (as if that even matters).

You said you want a gun ban because we've lost that privilege (lol, not that it matters, but homicide rates are down). Well screw freedom of speech, we've lost that privilege. Then it's not about that. It's about what the public wants. Well if that's the case then....

You're parroting a moronic idea, then when somebody points out its stupid, it suddenly becomes strawman central, and of course you revert to compromising to gun restrictions. Why would any party compromise with someone whose motive is to curb their civil liberties down to, ideally, the point where it's gone (as it relates to firearms)
Because this isn't a two person compromise. It is a 300 million person compromise. This isn't Kramer arguing with Morty over a percentage on raincoats. The "I'm not going to compromise on background checks that I think are sensible because a percentage of the population wants no guns at all" argument has never made sense. This isn't haggling over money. It is an attempt to make good policy. Let's just be honest. The people that us that argument don't really want any background checks or any limitations whatsoever. They just want to make an argument that they are reasonable and if it weren't for the nuts on the other side they wouldn't have to be unreasonable.

Name any whacko position out there and there is a percentage of people that are for it. You can always point to some group to scare people. If someone wants all guns ban, that is a valid position to have in the discussion. If someone wants no limits on guns, that is a valid position to have in the discussion. But as a group of 300M people, we have to come to a reasonable position. What has been done so far is not reasonable and caters to a small minority position. As would also be the case if we banned all guns tomorrow.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Another Bear said:

Anarchistbear said:

Another Bear said:

67% of all American support an assault weapon ban. It breaks down to be approx. 80% by Dems and 50% for GOP, so it's not the same game. Something about Trump egging on the RWNJs and 2 mass murder shootings within 24 hours of each other.

The kicker...it was a Fox News poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/assault-weapons-ban-fox-news-poll-gun-control/index.html


So you think we are being ruled by Nazis and fascists, right? So why would you want the government to take away guns?
Because I want blood flowing in the streets and all out violence. YUP BRING IT. The dumb will be the first to perish.

So when do the anarchists put on the all black gear, cover they faces, get out the clubs and garbage can lids to fight the man?

In any case the point is...the majority of Americans want assault weapons banned. 50% of the GOP is significant when you consider everything.


Actually I think Trump is more like Colonel
Klink than Hitler.

But this does sum up your Nazi hysteria bull****. The jackboots are in the street but let's tweet something and see how Republicans are polling. The Resistance!
Actually I just like using NAZI because it bends so many people out of shape...like you.

On a serious note, I get the over-use paradox. That said, Trump has had literal Nazis work for him driving policy. Have you not been paying attention? Do you prefer Nazi adjacent?

Nah, I'll call them Nazis. Works for me. Doesn't work for you too damn bad. Seriously getting caught up in the definitions of nazis, racists, etc...pointless BS to distract and get people to look away. That's why the resident dingbat Gbear questions every definition...because he likes to gaslight and lead a journey down a wingnut rabbit hole...that's actually a septic tank.

Look you're either for or against...or you just sit on the fence with all black gear on, wondering if you should bust that window on the bank. YMMV.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.

So,

A lot of policies and violation of civil rights we take for granted would lead to far-reaching positive outcomes. We could all but eliminate crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancies etc by trampling on civil liberties. But we don't do them.

you don't really believe any of the above=>You're attempting to be ironic and/or satirical, and/or
Dave Chappele-like.

Most excellent. Injecting humor into an otherwise serious discussion is very healthy.

Being a Cal fan: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Anarchistbear said:

Another Bear said:

Anarchistbear said:




So you think we are being ruled by Nazis and fascists, right? So why would you want the government to take away guns?

But this does sum up your Nazi hysteria bull****. The jackboots are in the street but let's tweet something and see how Republicans are polling. The Resistance!
Actually I just like using NAZI because it bends so many people out of shape...like you.

On a serious note, I get the over-use paradox. That said, Trump has had literal Nazis work for him driving policy. Have you not been paying attention? Do you prefer Nazi adjacent?

Nah, I'll call them Nazis. Works for me. Doesn't work for you too damn bad. Seriously getting caught up in the definitions of nazis, racists, etc...pointless BS to distract and get people to look away. That's why the resident dingbat Gbear questions every definition...because he likes to gaslight and lead a journey down a wingnut rabbit hole...that's actually a septic tank.

Look you're either for or against...or you just sit on the fence with all black gear on, wondering if you should bust that window on the bank. YMMV.
To summarize AB: I'm actually just trolling because it works for me. P.S., definitions don't matter. Are you with me or against me?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEARUPINDC said:

GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.

So,

A lot of policies and violation of civil rights we take for granted would lead to far-reaching positive outcomes. We could all but eliminate crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancies etc by trampling on civil liberties. But we don't do them.

you don't really believe any of the above=>You're attempting to be ironic and/or satirical, and/or
Dave Chappele-like.

Most excellent. Injecting humor into an otherwise serious discussion is very healthy.
I'm not sure I follow the implication here, but I am being quite literal. In a vacuum, all outcomes can be enhanced by violating people's civil rights and autonomy. Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads. And licensed theft. Take away people's rights and all the problems would be solved... and we'd still revolt because we value personal freedom that much.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gbear...go play on the freeway...with a blindfold.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Gbear...go play on the freeway...with a blindfold.
Lol love you too, bro.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

BEARUPINDC said:

GBear4Life said:

Exactly my point. Declaring that the outcome achieves a positive goal as some knock-down argument is stupid.

So,

A lot of policies and violation of civil rights we take for granted would lead to far-reaching positive outcomes. We could all but eliminate crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancies etc by trampling on civil liberties. But we don't do them.

you don't really believe any of the above=>You're attempting to be ironic and/or satirical, and/or
Dave Chappele-like.

Most excellent. Injecting humor into an otherwise serious discussion is very healthy.
I'm not sure I follow the implication here, but I am being quite literal. In a vacuum, all outcomes can be enhanced by violating people's civil rights and autonomy. Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads. And licensed theft. Take away people's rights and all the problems would be solved... and we'd still revolt because we value personal freedom that much.
I gather I failed miserably at attempted to inject " humor into an otherwise serious discussion". Seriously,
that's my fault.

In a theoretical sense, if we (I mean you, me, anyone) start out with "In a vacuum", we're free to posit
just about anything. "In a vacuum, CAL would be favored to win the Rose Bowl", Yeah, right. That might theoretically be true if the "vacuum" contained all permutations of other schools dropping football.

Before you say, "Bu***it , "That's just silly" (or whatever you choose) please explain why the statement about CAL makes less sense than "Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads".

(1) "Poverty" is relative, of course.
(2) in your "vacuum" there would be no guns....not even one to "put to people's heads".I






Being a Cal fan: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEARUPINDC said:

GBear4Life said:



I'm not sure I follow the implication here, but I am being quite literal. In a vacuum, all outcomes can be enhanced by violating people's civil rights and autonomy. Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads. And licensed theft. Take away people's rights and all the problems would be solved... and we'd still revolt because we value personal freedom that much.
I gather I failed miserably at attempted to inject " humor into an otherwise serious discussion". Seriously,
that's my fault.

In a theoretical sense, if we (I mean you, me, anyone) start out with "In a vacuum", we're free to posit
just about anything. "In a vacuum, CAL would be favored to win the Rose Bowl", Yeah, right. That might theoretically be true if the "vacuum" contained all permutations of other schools dropping football.

Before you say, "Bu***it , "That's just silly" (or whatever you choose) please explain why the statement about CAL makes less sense than "Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads".

(1) "Poverty" is relative, of course.
(2) in your "vacuum" there would be no guns....not even one to "put to people's heads".I

putting a gun to people's head (the equivalent of law) as in forcing people to give up/take other goods. It'd be quite easy to put enough resources in poor people's hands so that they don't qualify as poor. I don't mean killing poor people, or killing rich people to take their goods. Your Rose Bowl analogy requires other teams to "die off" which makes no sense because how does Cal qualify for a bowl if they have nobody to play.

Any fascist state can quell crime, poverty. It appears up to present day, humans value personal freedom more than guaranteeing basic sustenance for everyone.

bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

BEARUPINDC said:

GBear4Life said:



I'm not sure I follow the implication here, but I am being quite literal. In a vacuum, all outcomes can be enhanced by violating people's civil rights and autonomy. Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads. And licensed theft. Take away people's rights and all the problems would be solved... and we'd still revolt because we value personal freedom that much.
I gather I failed miserably at attempted to inject " humor into an otherwise serious discussion". Seriously,
that's my fault.

In a theoretical sense, if we (I mean you, me, anyone) start out with "In a vacuum", we're free to posit
just about anything. "In a vacuum, CAL would be favored to win the Rose Bowl", Yeah, right. That might theoretically be true if the "vacuum" contained all permutations of other schools dropping football.

Before you say, "Bu***it , "That's just silly" (or whatever you choose) please explain why the statement about CAL makes less sense than "Poverty can be solved by putting a gun to people's heads".

(1) "Poverty" is relative, of course.
(2) in your "vacuum" there would be no guns....not even one to "put to people's heads".I

putting a gun to people's head (the equivalent of law) as in forcing people to give up/take other goods. It'd be quite easy to put enough resources in poor people's hands so that they don't qualify as poor. I don't mean killing poor people, or killing rich people to take their goods. Your Rose Bowl analogy requires other teams to "die off" which makes no sense because how does Cal qualify for a bowl if they have nobody to play.

Any fascist state can quell crime, poverty. It appears up to present day, humans value personal freedom more than guaranteeing basic sustenance for everyone.


This is difficult...not in the sense that you're winning any arguments...but in that you only make semi-clear
what you supposedly mean in your following post.
EXAMPLE 1. you got some pushback and responded with " but I am being quite literal. In a vacuum". You're giving more info rather than making your first post more understandable.
EXAMPLE 2: So, I give you pushback on "in a vacuum" AND take you literally (you told me to) and gave you
pushback on "putting a gun to people's heads". Only now do I find out it's a metaphor. There's nothing wrong with that in general of course. However, you quite clearly want to be taken literally.

It's frustrating because some of what you're saying might make some sense....but you've lost me in the process..

I tried to be very careful in saying "if the "vacuum" contained all permutations of other schools dropping football." The "all permutations" MIIGHT start with only U$C getting a death-penalty-- say because half their
team was bought and paid for.






















Being a Cal fan: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can see how that confused you.

I am being literal in that an authoritarian government could do a number of things to eliminate poverty. But yes, the gun to the head was a metaphor for forcing people to doing things against their will. I mean, taxes or most laws are essentially putting guns to people's heads. If you don't adhere, you go to jail.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between what I personally WANT and what I WILL SETTLE FOR based on current political realities.

I hope that one day the public will come around to my preference for a full civilian gun ban. Given that is not the reality now, I will settle for other gun control measures that do currently enjoy majority support.
This has always been my understanding of your position. What you would settle for is irrelevant. You support a full gun ban. That is what is nonsensical in my view, and that's what I was criticizing. If I was a Nazi in Germany 80 years ago, I'd support exterminating all Jews, but I might settle for imprisoning all of them and making them slaves. What I'd settle for is irrelevant in evaluating the merit of the position I'd prefer. It doesn't save me from criticism for supporting genocide.

Do YOU get it?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:


You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between what I personally WANT and what I WILL SETTLE FOR based on current political realities.

I hope that one day the public will come around to my preference for a full civilian gun ban. Given that is not the reality now, I will settle for other gun control measures that do currently enjoy majority support.
This has always been my understanding of your position. What you would settle for is irrelevant. You support a full gun ban. That is what is nonsensical in my view, and that's what I was criticizing. If I was a Nazi in Germany 80 years ago, I'd support exterminating all Jews, but I might settle for imprisoning all of them and making them slaves. What I'd settle for is irrelevant in evaluating the merit of the position I'd prefer. It doesn't save me from criticism for supporting genocide.

Do YOU get it?

Banning guns = support for genocide

Got it.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:


You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between what I personally WANT and what I WILL SETTLE FOR based on current political realities.

I hope that one day the public will come around to my preference for a full civilian gun ban. Given that is not the reality now, I will settle for other gun control measures that do currently enjoy majority support.
This has always been my understanding of your position. What you would settle for is irrelevant. You support a full gun ban. That is what is nonsensical in my view, and that's what I was criticizing. If I was a Nazi in Germany 80 years ago, I'd support exterminating all Jews, but I might settle for imprisoning all of them and making them slaves. What I'd settle for is irrelevant in evaluating the merit of the position I'd prefer. It doesn't save me from criticism for supporting genocide.

Do YOU get it?

Banning guns = support for genocide

Got it.
I knew you'd go there! You know analogies are to illuminate comparative logic, not to literally equate the two scenarios. You were attempting to skate accountability for your gun ban by asserting your willingness to compromise.

But hey, now we're not talking about your gun ban
Page 2 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.