Now put him in the same room as the shooter. You think he'll still give a **** about the swat team? Sok you seem overly fixated on the minor details to the point where I wonder if you even see the bigger picture. A graph can still convey the truth even if every data point deviates from the true value.
Wasn't what I was going for, to be honest. You could/have flip that around: "Just because government does something evil doesn't mean it is, it but some of the people in it are evil. If it does good it's because government is good" The argument that there isn't necessarily a contradiction does not mean it's conclusive of one thing or another. Personally, I think "government is evil" is an oversimplification. With regards to the US specifically, I believe that several high-powered elements are "evil" (or at least acting against the interests of the nation to pursue personal gains), though of course I don't necessarily believe that an "evil" individual is wholly "evil" just that that tendency is dominant in their actions/intentions as far as others can see (and they could be wrong). Certainly though, it's possible for them to do some things that are perceived as "good." To put it another way: "Controlling elements of the government and MIIC* are corrupt." And in many higher levels of government it seems like there is wide-spread corruption at least to a low degree (insider trading, "favors", bribery, and the like). In other words "Government as a concept is largely neutral." Though I also agree with Bellagion that "evil" things can happen unintentionally as a result of problems with a given system. I think "good" things can also happen unintentionally, but it does seem rarer that way... possibly confirmation bias? And probably a result of "justified" but illegal actions being overlooked or missed, with regards to government systems specifically. Or maybe exposure of corruption that was intended largely as a political ploy rather than people caring about cleaning up the corrupted office(s) (though it'd be nice if it would just be exposed on a regular basis without the shenanigans). Also, secondarily with regards to Dark Jello, I don't know exactly how he feels about this particular type of nuance, but I do think it's very worth pointing out that his complaints have almost always been leveled at Federal or Centralized government. SWAT Police were Local government. Even if he believes that "the Feds are all EVIL!!1!" (which I doubt, since @Geressen is being a jerk and intentionally rewriting DJ's words to suit his own argument, slaughtering thousands of unicorns in the process) the Police being "good guys with guns" in this instance would not be counter to that position in the first place. And this is a large part of why I called him out as creating a straw man ('cause the only thing missing is the physical effigy). *(Military Industrial Intelligence Complex, thought I'd start using abrvs., particularly since it's a bit of a mouthful and my posts are overly long as it is )
how exactly are guns going to be used to defend against the high levels of goverment? don't Firk with strawmen bro, or mermen. dammit won't let me set the start time... go to 3 min 47 sec : note the ineffectiveness of the gun. EDIT: there is also a unicorn in there...
From the 10-8-2015 article you linked: Former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley was determined to keep handguns out of residents' hands and he fought every legal challenge to Chicago's gun restrictions during his 22 years in office. But the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a big blow to Chicago's gun laws in 2010 when it struck down the city's handgun ban. Chicago quickly enacted a gun ordinance that proponents said included some of the nation's toughest regulations, but the city was forced to scrap some of the provisions that most angered gun rights advocates. Then, after a federal appeals court struck down Illinois' last-in-the-nation concealed carry ban in 2012, gun rights advocates took aim at Chicago's decades-old ban on gun stores. The city lost that fight, too, and last year passed an ordinance allowing gun stores. No gun store has opened in the city yet. That means that every gun owned legally or illegally came from somewhere else. Just how many is unclear, but Chicago's police department seizes more illegal weapons than any other in the nation — nearly 20 a day for a total of 5,500 so far this year. Two years ago, several black Illinois lawmakers blocked a bill backed by McCarthy and Emanuel that would have imposed stiffer prison sentences on those convicted of illegal gun possession. The lawmakers viewed it as a recipe to lock up more blacks and Latinos. (Emphasis mine). Obama and his pals can't even get Chicago fixed. Why would we want that failure exported to the rest of the country? It makes reason stare.
Your point is valid. I actually agree that Chicago should have strict gun control. But it does not seem to be working. Or, at the least, not working as well as hoped. Democrats have had near iron-fisted control of that, and essentially all other, large cities for decades and decades and decades. Maybe the next law will be effective? Maybe.
hopefully, but it takes a village. and half the village is on fire and the other half is flooded. so hopefully you guys can work out a solution where one side agrees to not light fires and the other side is willing to share the water. a post of mine was moved from this thread to ... this thread ... reason: trolling. I visualise this as picking something up, floccinaucinihilipilificating it, and putting it back where it was.
Revolution, generally*. Ideally it wouldn't be, as it is generally a last resort. However, in particular guns can be used to facilitate the arrest of corrupt officials. Defend against a military coup. And so on. It's a funny movie, but it's also just a movie. You being a a childish jerk relying on miss-characterizations and non-sequitur to participate in a political discussion is sadly reality. That second part is generally why people think it "needs" to be exported nation-wide, so as to reduce the number of firearms in the area in totality. A partial ban on guns within one sub-location while there is ready-access to guns in nearby sub-locations means that it is "easier" to get a gun into a restricted locale anyway. "Wide-spread" bans/strict regulations would in theory cut down on that. *(And no, the Colonies were not the only ones to have an armed revolution result in greater freedoms for it's people, or otherwise [at least temporarily] reduced corruption in government.)
Except no one said anything remotely like this, while the opposite was just used a justification for why it's possible for government to do good and still be evil. I mean, you can say, "I didn't mean it was ACTUALLY true." But then, why even say it? It's like saying, "I am not saying they are ACTUALLY Nazis.. but.."
We don't know, he didn't say anything about that. What you call minor details I call facts of the situation. The claims being made are that these sort of tragedies may be caused by the fact that these are "gun-free zones": a claim that is factually incorrect in this instance and does not apply. That was my point, and remains my point. There were people with guns on campus, despite claims to the contrary. That's all. In this case, the "big picture" is that it's a complex issue with different sides having different points of view. And I think that important issues like these needs to be discussed truthfully, instead of ideologically ignoring the details for the sake of convenience. A graph cannot convey the truth if it claims to be about X and actually has data about Y - which was the problem that you refused to see or acknowledge. I can graph a whale's weight over time and tell you its unemployment, and you'd say "IT IS TRUE" - it doesn't matter whether unemployment is ACTUALLY going up, apparently, as long as you believe it to be true, then it "conveys the truth." This is not a matter of "minor details." It is literally lying. I mean, you are basically saying the ends justifies the means, here, right? It doesn't matter whether something is true or if the details are correct, as long as it fulfills the goals you agree with, it's ok.
The fact remains that many American politicians get a tingle up their collective legs as they discuss techniques to ban all guns--except from law enforcement, and military, and private security, and spies, and SWAT teams from dozens of gvt agencies NOT involved in stopping violent criminals, and organized crime. The genie is out of the bottle. And it aint going back in, no matter what anyone does or says. That is the sad reality we must confront. Guns Gone Crazy, in theaters soon.
Sok if someone in that class room had a gun, then the body count would be lower. This what you're bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging, And when you say a campus with a no gun policy doesn't fit the legal definition of a gun free zone, so what? It was a gun free room where the slaughter happened. So if anything you're showing that the real solution would have been to let those victims arm themselves rather than rely on swat or a single security guard who can't be everywhere at once.
No? We were literally discussing the idea of whether policies to encourage someone in the room having a gun would be effective in the last few pages of this thread, a discussion I initiated. If this doesn't count as "acknowledging" the possibility, I don't know what does. That was basically my question, yes - see above. ~ DarkJello, this is a "strawman," right?
Obama visited Roseburg today. But. It was NOT politically motivated. How do I know. Cause he promised. Truer words... I like this pic the best, so far: (Lots of "easter eggs" abound).
I will comment, but my brain is too tired from a very long week. And, sadly, I am still 7-8 hours behind on paperwork. Salary. Thus working for free again, as per FUDGING usual. Edit: Gonna reply to you query Sok, just not today. I will edit this reply again, after my response.
I wasn't really looking for a reply. I'd rather you reply to my thoughts on Trump's tax plan, that's more interesting
Oh dang. I shared my thoughts, and forgot to reply to yours. My bad. Egg on my face, again. I shall repent, and then fix this oversight.
we talkin' bout the colonies some english people started so they could discriminate based on religion then bankrupted England by starting a war and then were manipulated by the rich into rebellion to avoid having to pay taxes to fund the treasury they bankrupted by starting a war? because well done, you stars.
Not sure it that's the case. But let's assume it was. I believe that a gun comes with the affordance to be used as a weapon. If a person has a problem and a gun, the gun is basically saying "use me to solve your problem". Said person now considers actions she or he wouldn't have considered if she or he had no weapon. Those new options include: Killing others in an overly brutal act of vengeance instead of looking for professional help or committing suicide. Killing a burglar in the living room instead of fleeing and calling the police. Coercing and robbing someone who is likely to be unarmed. Threatening someone with a gun who had uttered mere insults. Etc. It is this psychological momentum that makes me doubt civilians should have access to weapons. For the case of a shooting, we need to consider: Everyone having a gun makes ending a shooting more likely. Everyone having a gun makes the occurrence of a shooting more likely. It also applies for ordinary crimes (see my earlier post), where having a weapon increases both the likelihood of a crime and the likelihood of escalation of the crime.
