Orlando Shootings (1 Viewer)

Bodisathva · Jun 16, 2016

ColinEssex said:
Aren't "native Americans" called Red Indians then?

nope...just Indians. "Native Americans" is for the liberals that push politically correct drivel at those that don't actually care. The proper translation, in my case anyway, is simply "The People". ...and more civilized than most people I come across today.

Still the grumpy ne'er do well, I see. How've you been Col?

mdnuts · Jun 17, 2016

Alc said:
The goalposts haven't moved an inch. You and Steve can cuddle up to each other and thanks yourselves all you want, but the original points remain the same and nothing either of you has said has come close to refuting it.

"The 'guns don't kill people' crowd will never change their viewpoint in spite of overwhelming evidence that a maniac with a gun can do far more damage than a maniac with a knife."

Go back in history 10, 20 or 50 years if you want. Outside of wars (and terrorists DO believe that hey are fighting a war), find an example of individuals killing more innocent people using some other method than they have using firearms. I stressed individuals as that is what this thread is about, an individual buying guns legally and going after a group he didn't like. Links to Isis have been suggested but nothing has come to light thus far that suggests what he did was the act of an organized group.

No I called you out on exactly what you did and continue to do - your inability to see it doesn't matter much.

Alc · Jun 20, 2016

mdnuts said:
No I called you out on exactly what you did and continue to do - your inability to see it doesn't matter much.

You've convinced me. I now think guns are a great idea, people are the problem, and saving a large number of lives isn't worth doing.

Steve R. · Jun 21, 2016

Every once in a while, the truth leaks out. In the case of the Orlando shooting, the Obama administration has been caught manipulating the truth in the best Orwellian traditions of "1984". To quote Orwell: “It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”.

White House blames Justice for redacting ‘radical Islam’ from Orlando shooter transcript

FBI reversed initial decision to redact ISIS mentions from Orlando 911 transcript

This issue is particularly troubling for numerous reasons:

The Obama administration is using the government to lie to the people.
Some of the media, such as the Washington Post, have become an extension of the government's "Ministry of Truth".
This is one incident. Given this one incident, one can assume that there are more. How many more have there been that have not yet been uncovered?

A couple of other amazingly convenient glitches (for the gullible):
State Dept. Refuses To Provide Name Of Employee Ordered To Scrub Iran Video
White House censors French president for saying ‘Islamist terrorism’

How many of these "trivial" incidences of "drip, drip, drip" do we have to tract before we can reasonably conclude that the Obama administration effectively has a "Ministry of Truth" that is re-writing history for blatant political gain. The continued accumulation of these incidents clearly demonstrates that Obama's assertions of "transparency" are totally bogus.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” Orwell

Galaxiom · Jun 21, 2016

Steve R. said:
Soon, to protect your health, you may find it impossible to legally buy a sugary drink.

The soda industry is on the verge of losing one of its biggest battles ever

This is typical of the disingenuous hyperbole of gun-nuts who claim that any imposition whatsoever upon gun ownership such as registering firearms or licencing owners equates to "taking away our guns".

Read the link about soda. It is about putting a tax on sugary drinks and in no way amounts to making it "impossible to legally buy a sugary drink".

An you have the temerity to claim that Obama is a liar.

Steve R. · Jun 22, 2016

I believe that you are overreacting and misconstrued what I wrote. My attempt to imply a lack of seriousness (the big grin emoji to suggest some levity) concerning the soda tax obviously fell flat. Yes, it's just a tax for now. But you overlook the progressive nature of these types of laws and my background context.

Steve R. said:
The answer for the progressive left is to impose more laws and even bigger government to "solve" all these issues. Soon, to protect your health, you may find it impossible to legally buy a sugary drink.

The anti-gun lobby began with "minor" restrictions. Overtime, the proposals of the anti-gun lobby have become ever more onerous. This progressive trend towards more onerous laws can also be extrapolated to the anti-soda lobby to.

----------------------------

Note a prior attempt to limit the sale of sugary soda in 2014. New York’s Ban on Big Sodas Is Rejected by Final Court

"The state’s highest court on Thursday refused to reinstate New York City’s controversial limits on sales of jumbo sugary drinks, exhausting the city’s final appeal and dashing the hopes of health advocates who have urged state and local governments to curb the consumption of drinks and foods linked to obesity."

Though rejected by the court, in typical progressive fashion limiting the sale of soda appears to have been resurrected in 2015. Bloomberg’s soda-ban could be back — but only for minors.

Assembly member Matthew Titone (D-SI) has taken the torch from former Mayor Mike Bloomberg and introduced a bill that would ban single-serving sales of sugary sodas 16 ounces or larger for kids under 18.

I don't know whether this subsequent proposal has died or not. I assume it has based on the apparent lack of articles. The humorous image below is a reflection that others are also aware of the progressive nature of many laws passed to "protect" you. Of course, some laws are necessary.

The_Doc_Man · Jul 1, 2016

From Alc

I ask again, name ONE developed country that experiences as many cases of individual people deciding to kill a group and being able to do it with the ease and regularity that they can in the US?

One country? No - but one geographic region smaller than the USA? How about the recent events in the Belgian and Turkish airports? Last I looked, neither of these were in the USA and yet terrorism reared its ugly head there, too. That's two MAJOR events in the same calendar year already, and we have half a year left to go.

I agree with the general philosophy that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." When that statement is questioned, nobody every answers with the counter-question: How about someone taking responsibility for their actions?

The terrorist viewpoint is to try to force people to cower in fear so that they can have their way. The correct response is to find where they are hiding and return the favor. They don't seem to understand anything else because their extremist sect (usually some form of Wahabbi) isn't interested in negotiation or compromise.

I truly grieve for the (pardon my language here) CRAP that peaceful Muslims around the world have to endure when these whack-job terrorists give Islam a bad name.

Alc · Jul 13, 2016

The_Doc_Man said:
One country? No - but one geographic region smaller than the USA? How about the recent events in the Belgian and Turkish airports? Last I looked, neither of these were in the USA and yet terrorism reared its ugly head there, too. That's two MAJOR events in the same calendar year already, and we have half a year left to go.

I did ask for examples discounting wars and went on to specify that terrorists are acting in what, they feel, is a war. Terrorists are, in their mind, soldiers on a mission and so are usually better equipped that some lone lunatic.

Wars are a very different subject and need to be treated differently for the purposes of debate. I grew up in the UK at a time when the IRA were still blowing things up. No amount of legislation was going to stop them from being armed, but the number of innocent deaths caused by people were just angry at the world would have been far higher if said people had access to firearms.

What I'm hearing are people saying it's no point muzzling dangerous dogs to stop many people from being bitten, since they can still use claws to inflict less damage to far fewer people.

ColinEssex · Jul 18, 2016

The_Doc_Man said:
I agree with the general philosophy that "guns don't kill people; people kill people." When that statement is questioned, nobody every answers with the counter-question: How about someone taking responsibility for their actions?

I wonder if "people" didn't have guns, would there would be so many killings in the USA?

The USA has made its bed, get used to it - guns are in the USA to stay, therefore cops will kill blacks, lunies will kill kids in schools, and as most ex soldiers seem to be psychos, they will kill anything that breathes, especially cops.

Were things better when blacks were segregated? For example if two children are always fighting and hate each other, you try to keep them apart. It seemed to work with the red indians.
Was Martin Luther King right with his "I have a dream" stuff? Or did he just stir everyone up and make matters worse.

Col

The_Doc_Man · Jul 19, 2016

Colin, the problem is that given enough desire, gun laws make little difference in someone's ability to buy guns as long as the USA doesn't tightly control its borders. Besides, we have a saying about "closing the barn door after the horses have already left." I think the gun control issue is a refusal of the anti-gun crowd to recognize reality. The guns are out there. It will take literally decades to find them all and confiscate them - if someone actually has the balls to pass a law allowing that and if it doesn't foment armed rebellion when law enforcement tries to enforce that one.

I am forced to look at this using my Zen-colored glasses. The guns are out there. They exist and are already in the hands of the people. So what do you do about it? (Note that it is a rhetorical question but I don't have a ready answer.)

Lightwave · Jul 19, 2016

The_Doc_Man said:
The guns are out there. They exist and are already in the hands of the people. So what do you do about it?

It comes down to whether you consider a gun as an instrument of defence or an instrument of attack.

I contend that they are crap at defence.

With guns for defence you need to know who is coming for you from what direction and when they are coming. An attacker can identify victims beforehand and so just needs to choose the where and when.

Bet your bottom dollar they'll chose a time and a place which is the most awkward to the victim. I can't see having a gun will help until well into a gun fight.

Of course the alternative is to become super paranoid and point a gun at everyone that comes up your drive/bump in the night

(That worked well for Oscar Pistorious the original Blade Runner)

You still get deaths from people weilding knives but generally speaking the scale is vastly reduced because people have to get abnormally close one at a time to use a knife and its slow. Its quite hard to outrun bullets.

As for lorries - there are a lot of places lorries can't go (planes boats stadia buildings etc) so there are easy steps you can do to protect yourself besides we need them to deliver our groceries food being about as vital as our central nervous systems. Guns can go everywhere and they are crap for getting the vegetables home.

If you believe the above to be true it stands to reason that removing guns means less people that can attack you.
QED gun haters aren't bothered about trying to protect themselves with guns because they don't believe guns make a blind bit of difference and they don't want to attack anyone but believe by banning and removing guns from society there will be less people to attack them.

So to someone with this logic even if there are thousands of guns out there banning and getting rid of them, even slowly, makes perfect sense.

I don't buy that line guns don't kill people people kill people

Actually looks to me like guns are great for killing people.

ColinEssex · Jul 24, 2016

I think if I lived in America, I would open a gun shop, sales are massive apparently. We all know Americans are highly paranoid so it seems logical to cash in on people's paranoia. Or I would open a flower shop but the problem there is knowing where to have one. If you build up a nationwide chain, that would take a while and probably miss out on several mass killings. Hmmmm, maybe a mobile flower shop would suffice then one can drive to the affected area and make a killing flogging all the flowers.
On the other hand.. . . .

But if Trump gets in, maybe brick making or wall building is the career to chose.

There must be a way to cash in on these events.

Col

Uncle Gizmo · Jul 24, 2016

Good idea Colin. Did you know, gun shop owners are often shot?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Frothingslosh · Jul 25, 2016

I have to admit, I do find it both interesting and quite telling that the Munich shooting completely vanished from the news the instant it was discovered that the shooter wasn't Muslim.

It's almost as if the media were attempting to fan the flames of Islamophobia for some reason.

Uncle Gizmo · Jul 25, 2016

Frothingslosh said:
I have to admit, I do find it both interesting and quite telling that the Munich shooting completely vanished from the news the instant it was discovered that the shooter wasn't Muslim

People aren't naturally nice. I've been learning meditation... See Erkhart Tolle on YouTube.

Basically, the ISIS people are no different. They are controlled by their conflicted minds as we all are.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

AccessBlaster · Jul 25, 2016

Frothingslosh said:
I have to admit, I do find it both interesting and quite telling that the Munich shooting completely vanished from the news the instant it was discovered that the shooter wasn't Muslim.

It's almost as if the media were attempting to fan the flames of Islamophobia for some reason.

For one thing the story doesn't have time to develop before the next tragedy.

Rx_ · Jul 25, 2016

Oh my? The media could be bias? LOL They might even exaggerate the wrong points to push some agenda?
Like Radio Station DJ, there are many less news people as corporations gobble up the industry. Yes, Bill Gates MSNBC did change the standards according to those laid off who didn't meet the new standards.

Here is the Pay Grade of the news makers. Sports was included since they rule the roost. The other trend is the age of the average reporter has dropped around 11 years during this decade. It was low to begin with. This indicates newsmakers have little life experience. e.g. how many of them have been in the field to a war zone, to a famine, or a dictatorship. For the fun of it, how many of them have ever spent a week in a ghetto.

They must follow what the owners / directors tell them if they want a job.
What owners want is to sell advertisement and make money.
Profits comes from a range of things such as receiving political advantages and advertisement. If the Mayor invites you to a News Release and excludes your competitors, you better be friendly to the Mayor.

Here are the salaries of the US Newsmakers.
This is nothing new, it is just the way the media industry works.
Except for the BBC where every worker there upholds the appearance of the strictest form of character, fair reporting, and honesty.

If you don't follow the news, you are uninformed. If you follow the news, you are misinformed. (Mark Twain) Again, its nothing new.

US (cumulative inflation for 2003 to 2013 is approx. 24% USD)
Median Comparisons 2013 2008 5-Year Percentage Change 2003 10-Year Percentage Change
Sports Anchor 45,000 40,000 +12.5 35,000 +28.6
News Reporter 30,000 29,500 +1.7 26,000 +15.4
Sports Reporter 30,000 29,000 +3.4 25,000 +20.0
Assignment Editor 37,000 34,000 +8.8 30,000 +23.3
News Producer 31,000 30,000 +3.3 27,000 +14.8
News Writer 36,500 24,000 +52.1 27,500 +32.7
News Assistant 28,000 25,500 +9.8 21,000 +33.3
Photographer 30,000 27,000 +11.1 25,000 +20.0
Tape Editor 28,000 25,000 +12.0 23,000 +21.7
Graphics Specialist 31,800 29,500 +7.8 25,000 +27.2
Web/Mobile Writer 32,000 33,800* -5.3 30,000* +6.7
Web/Mobile Prod/Ed 35,000 33,800* +3.6 30,000* +16.7

Follow the money to understand the situation.

The_Doc_Man · Feb 16, 2018

And now 17 more in Broward County, Florida.

I'm still not a fan of gun control because in most cases, would-be shooters find ways to get the guns they want. The problem isn't with law-abiding citizens. Never really was. But this kid had posted disturbing pictures and comments on multiple social media. Someone even reported one of his posts to the FBI. They were unable to trace it back to a point to at least visit the kid.

The three teachers who died in this attack did so as heroes, including the coach who put his body in front of the shooter to protect the kids behind him. I know of no other words for such a person than those in the Bible. Greater love has no person than he who lays down his life for another.

No, not going religious on you - the words have value even outside the context of religion.

AccessBlaster · Feb 17, 2018

The_Doc_Man said:
Someone even reported one of his posts to the FBI.

They had multiple tips on this former student. More Gun laws cannot compel the FBI to do their job period. They need to stop looking for phantom Russians, and start looking into legit gun threat tips sheesh. Especially when it comes to schools. Do the basics first.

MarkK · Feb 17, 2018

Here are the facts on the impact of the last assault rifle ban...

With respect, the argument that controlling weapons has no effect on mass-murders is a lie.

Orlando Shootings (1 Viewer)

Registered User.

Registered User.

Registered User.

Retired

Super Moderator

Retired

Immoderate Moderator

Registered User.

Old registered user

Immoderate Moderator

Ad astra

Old registered user

Nifty Access Guy

Premier Pale Stale Ale

Nifty Access Guy

Registered User.

Nothing In Moderation

Immoderate Moderator

Registered User.

bit cruncher

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread