Mass shootings

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So having a smart phone and an Instagram account makes you media savvy?  

Hard time reading English?

Quote:І дзеці ў гэтыя дні значна больш сродкаў масавай інфармацыі падкаваныя. Яны не баяцца камер, таму што яны заўсёды маюць адзін у іх руцэ ці на іх дзякуючы смартфонам

Yes. They are not intimidated by a camera. They aren't afraid to be in front of one. Meet some kids.

(02-19-2018, 02:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: And btw the issue isn’t the children agreeing to go on tv.   It’s the media outlets pushing for it knowing they are doing these children harm.    All the kids see is they get a screen shot with a CNN logo under their name they can use on Twitter.

The people to blame are the parents for allowing it to happen.

Purely speculation on your part.

Thanks.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 02:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Pelosi’s grandchild being bullied for being trans black isn’t quite the same as pats adult trying to mess with a girl over the Internet to the point she commits suicide.  

But hey no one expected anything less from you.

Dr. Freud, your slip is showing. 

All seriousness aside I'm off the bullying thing. the words can speak for themselves no matter how much you want to run back from them now.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-19-2018, 02:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Hard time reading English?



Yes. They are not intimidated by a camera. They aren't afraid to be in front of one. Meet some kids.


Purely speculation on your part.

Thanks.

Being media savvy isn’t being comfortable in front of a camera. It’s knowing what to say and what not to say. It’s obvious when you look at a young person’s Instagram or Twitter they don’t know what to not say a lot of the time.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-19-2018, 02:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dr. Freud, your slip is showing. 

All seriousness aside I'm off the bullying thing. the words can speak for themselves no matter how much you want to run back from them now.

I stand by my bullying comments. Exactly how I have always stated them. It’s not my fault the zealots here aren’t able to just take them for what I said instead of what they want it to say. Exactly the same as the savages comment. You guys are just lazy.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If only they had no ability to exert political force.  They exist as a strong, and constant, threat.  The point being that, despite having none of the equipment that we were just told by our resident military experts inform is is necessary to fight, the Taliban still exists.  This is despite fighting the most well equipped, technologically advanced and strongest military in human history.  



Oh, to be certain, which is why I brought of Scalise.  The man was nearly murdered by a crazed politically motivated gunman and didn't shift his opinion on firearms at all.  This is because his opinion on the matter is ground in firm conviction, not emotion.  In the same manner as you describe, his opinion is completely discounted by those who oppose his position.


This is an inane argument as it could absolutely be made with the point of yours that I responded to.



I didn't say they didn't have a reason, I said they didn't state their reason, which was exactly what you said.  I possess rounds of ammunition that I hope to never use.  That doesn't make my reason for purchasing said ammunition less valid.  As to your last point, explain all the "liberals" who bought firearms since Trump was elected?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345





I know how a search warrant is executed.  Please don't even try and have this argument with me, you have zero expertise or knowledge in this area.  



I don't know more than anyone, I know a hell of a lot more than you.

 

Learning from Fred now are you, responding to an point no one made.  I pointed out he didn't make the same argument you did, he said you don't need an AR15 for hunting.  For hunting deer of larger prey I wouldn't use an AR15 either, the .223 ammunition they us are designed to wound, not kill.  This alone makes it a poor hunting choice.  What it is used for is varmint "hunting", with prey such as coyotes.  I don't live anywhere near a place I could go hunting.  A friend lives in Oregon and I'd use my lever action 45-70 Marlin if I go hunting with him.

 

I guarantee I know more than the person who wrote the blog you didn't bother linking.  If she tried to make the argument that no Apache means no chance then she's clearly an idiot who shouldn't be taken too seriously.  What I find especially interesting is that you consistently do, to me, what you just accused me of doing to your "sources".  I know more about the criminal justice system and law enforcement than anyone on this board.  Yet, my opinion on these issues is constantly discounted by people like you due to my not sharing your political sensibilities.  When Jim Breech and I had a disagreement about m855 ammunition being used for home defense was I, at any time, at a loss?  Jim knows way more about being an infantryman than me, but I'd say our firearms knowledge is rather equal.


I certainly hope that no firearm in this nation will ever be used for this purpose.  I, sadly, don't think you can say that it's impossible that it ever gets to that point.

Yep.  You know more than everyone who disagrees with you.  I expected nothing less.

Here's the blog. 

https://tinyurl.com/ycrvxuor

I ran it through tiny url because there is a dirty word in the link and the title.

Glad to help.

Have a nice day.

[Belsnickel]

(02-19-2018, 02:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Young people do not love to get likes, shares, and attention? They are getting celebrity type treatment. By that I mean attention. You don’t have to coerce young people to do things that get them more attention and popularity. You do however need to protect them from that attention. It’s hard enough for child celebs to deal with the attention and now we are expecting children who have no way of dealing with this much attention plus who are dealing with the fact they saw their classmates gunned down.

This is something we should protecting them from, not encouraged to run towards. There are several stages of grief and none of them include burying it under celeb like attention. When the attention goes away these kids will be hurting.

Right now they are experiencing a healthy stage of grief. If you adhere to the Kübler-Ross model, then they are currently going through the second, and maybe third, stage of the process. They are finding an outlet for this. They're going to come down off of it whether or not they spent time in front of a camera. If they can find a productive way to channel this anger, then good for them. It's better than harming themselves or others. It has a potential for a positive impact. If they are not being coerced into doing this then I see it as a positive thing.

I'm not going to throw around bona fides, because this is the internet and everyone's e-penis is whatever they claim it to be. This is just based on my understanding of psychology and my experiences.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-19-2018, 03:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now they are experiencing a healthy stage of grief. If you adhere to the Kübler-Ross model, then they are currently going through the second, and maybe third, stage of the process. They are finding an outlet for this. They're going to come down off of it whether or not they spent time in front of a camera. If they can find a productive way to channel this anger, then good for them. It's better than harming themselves or others. It has a potential for a positive impact. If they are not being coerced into doing this then I see it as a positive thing.

I'm not going to throw around bona fides, because this is the internet and everyone's e-penis is whatever they claim it to be. This is just based on my understanding of psychology and my experiences.

Fair enough. In my experience it’s not wise and I certainly would not allow my children on Television. This is a parenting issue. Which is ironically what that Florida teacher of th year brought up on Facebook tre other day as well.

[BmorePat87]

(02-19-2018, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If only they had no ability to exert political force.  They exist as a strong, and constant, threat.  The point being that, despite having none of the equipment that we were just told by our resident military experts inform is is necessary to fight, the Taliban still exists.  This is despite fighting the most well equipped, technologically advanced and strongest military in human history.  

I don't think anyone is suggesting any group that challenges the US military would completely cease to exist, but you attempted to use the Taliban as an example of how an under equipped force would present a major challenge to the US government.


I don't think comparing a local insurgency to a foreign government or a foreign insurgency is the best comparison, especially when they are armed with things like tanks. We went overseas and within a month overthrew a government with 1,300 troops. Sure, they can grab hold 10% of the country after the US reduces its troop levels from over 100,000 to 14,000, but this has more to do with the fact the US cannot maintain a presence in a foreign nation. How would that play out in the US?

What "tyranny" of the government could be prevented by force or the threat of force?

On the flip side, this could also be an argument for expanding the 2nd Amendment. I don't have a dog in this argument other than to play devil's advocate.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  You know more than everyone who disagrees with you.  I expected nothing less.

The non-response, response.  It's your go to move when you've got nothing else.

Quote:Here's the blog. 

https://tinyurl.com/ycrvxuor

I ran it through tiny url because there is a dirty word in the link and the title.

Glad to help.

Have a nice day.

Yes, posting your sources is considered standard posting etiquette.  You're welcome for the gentle reminder. 

Your "source", is full of shit and I haven't even gotten past two paragraphs.

Let's start;

Quote:At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US.

The first statement is insane hyperbole.  It's like saying "it's not if you get hit by lightning, it's when".  As for the second, this is blatantly false statement.

Quote:This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one.

No wonder you like this person so much, they're for confiscation.  I read the rest, it's typical hyperbole.  They don't want you to own a AR (I wonder if an AK47 or 74 would be ok, how about an M14?).  They raise no new, unique or interesting points.  They simply echo your beliefs, therefore, to you, it's a good source.  I suppose you'd lend equal credence to a blog written by a veteran who claims that owning an AR is important?  I'm guessing no. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 03:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think anyone is suggesting any group that challenges the US military would completely cease to exist, but you attempted to use the Taliban as an example of how an under equipped force would present a major challenge to the US government.

Do you think the Taliban still exists because we haven't been bothered to finally finish them off?

Quote:I don't think comparing a local insurgency to a foreign government or a foreign insurgency is the best comparison, especially when they are armed with things like tanks. We went overseas and within a month overthrew a government with 1,300 troops. Sure, they can grab hold 10% of the country after the US reduces its troop levels from over 100,000 to 14,000, but this has more to do with the fact the US cannot maintain a presence in a foreign nation. How would that play out in the US?

Yet you think that a war against it's own citizens would play out better?

Quote:What "tyranny" of the government could be prevented by force or the threat of force?

There are literally millions of gun owners in the US.  Let's say only 10% of those owners would fight back against US "tyranny".  That would still be around 10 million people.  You also assume US soldiers would have no qualms about firing on US civilians.  Again, let me make this clear for our resident word twisters (not referring to you btw), I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, it's not.  But to say that an armed civilian populace wouldn't prove to be an immense challenge for any military is asinine.  Stop thinking about conventional warfare, an armed populace wouldn't fight that way.  It would be guerrilla, partisan, warfare and it would be brutal.  Such a fight nullifies many of the advantages a modern military has, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq tried to fight a conventional war, they got their asses kicked.  The Taliban went into insurgency mode, which is why they still exists and are a major pain in the ass.  In Vietnam the VC proved far more challenging to deal with than the NVA.  Unlike the French we beat the dog shit out of the NVA , we won every military engagement of significance.

Quote:On the flip side, this could also be an argument for expanding the 2nd Amendment. I don't have a dog in this argument other than to play devil's advocate.

Not really.  Like I said, a infantryman and his rifle is the best combat system on the planet.  If military body armor developed to the point that modern small arms are ineffectual against a soldier, then your point will become much more valid.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 03:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The non-response, response.  It's your go to move when you've got nothing else.


Yes, posting your sources is considered standard posting etiquette.  You're welcome for the gentle reminder. 

Your "source", is full of shit and I haven't even gotten past two paragraphs.

Let's start;



The first statement is insane hyperbole.  It's like saying "it's not if you get hit by lightning, it's when".  As for the second, this is blatantly false statement.


No wonder you like this person so much, they're for confiscation.  I read the rest, it's typical hyperbole.  They don't want you to own a AR (I wonder if an AK47 or 74 would be ok, how about an M14?).  They raise no new, unique or interesting points.  They simply echo your beliefs, therefore, to you, it's a good source.  I suppose you'd lend equal credence to a blog written by a veteran who claims that owning an AR is important?  I'm guessing no. 

Yep.  I sure was wrong to say you think you know more than everyone who disagrees with you..

Yep.

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 03:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fair enough.   In my experience it’s not wise and I certainly would not allow my children on Television.    This is a parenting issue.  Which is ironically what that Florida teacher of th year brought up on Facebook tre other day as well.

Why is their opinion more important?

Oh yeah...you agree with it.

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2018, 03:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fair enough.   In my experience it’s not wise and I certainly would not allow my children on Television.    This is a parenting issue.  Which is ironically what that Florida teacher of th year brought up on Facebook tre other day as well.

TBH, I don't know what the wise choice would be. My instinct would be to protect them and if someone tried to shove a microphone in their face, the very likely would be a new story to talk about. WTS, if my child expressed a desire to talk publicly I would ensure he/she was given the platform.

All that we can hope for i that these kids are not being manipulated to serve the motives of adults. That is why I lost my mind on here a couple years back when folks were applauding Potty-Mouthed Princesses. I could not believe there were rational adults that supported the method, so I would not be surprised if some adults are trying to do the same with these poor children and if they are I hope they reap what they sow.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-19-2018, 03:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Why is their opinion more important?

Oh yeah...you agree with it.

I'm gonna go with cause Teacher of the Year. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-19-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you think the Taliban still exists because we haven't been bothered to finally finish them off?




Yet you think that a war against it's own citizens would play out better?




There are literally millions of gun owners in the US.  Let's say only 10% of those owners would fight back against US "tyranny".  That would still be around 10 million people.  You also assume US soldiers would have no qualms about firing on US civilians.  Again, let me make this clear for our resident word twisters (not referring to you btw), I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, it's not.  But to say that an armed civilian populace wouldn't prove to be an immense challenge for any military is asinine.  Stop thinking about conventional warfare, an armed populace wouldn't fight that way.  It would be guerrilla, partisan, warfare and it would be brutal.  Such a fight nullifies many of the advantages a modern military has, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq tried to fight a conventional war, they got their asses kicked.  The Taliban went into insurgency mode, which is why they still exists and are a major pain in the ass.  In Vietnam the VC proved far more challenging to deal with than the NVA.  Unlike the French we beat the dog shit out of the NVA , we won every military engagement of significance.


Not really.  Like I said, a infantryman and his rifle is the best combat system on the planet.  If military body armor developed to the point that modern small arms are ineffectual against a soldier, then your point will become much more valid.

An uprising in the US would play out completely differently than in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. US troops wouldn't be a foreign presence. The bulk of the population would be on their side. There's no issue with culture or languages. We have an infrastructure in place to monitor these domestic threats and consistently take them out before they present a problem. 

 At the end of the day they're domestic terrorists and would be as successful as other recent domestic terrorists.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-19-2018, 03:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you think the Taliban still exists because we haven't been bothered to finally finish them off?




Yet you think that a war against it's own citizens would play out better?




There are literally millions of gun owners in the US.  Let's say only 10% of those owners would fight back against US "tyranny".  That would still be around 10 million people.  You also assume US soldiers would have no qualms about firing on US civilians.  Again, let me make this clear for our resident word twisters (not referring to you btw), I'm not saying such a scenario is likely, it's not.  But to say that an armed civilian populace wouldn't prove to be an immense challenge for any military is asinine.  Stop thinking about conventional warfare, an armed populace wouldn't fight that way.  It would be guerrilla, partisan, warfare and it would be brutal.  Such a fight nullifies many of the advantages a modern military has, as evidenced by Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq tried to fight a conventional war, they got their asses kicked.  The Taliban went into insurgency mode, which is why they still exists and are a major pain in the ass.  In Vietnam the VC proved far more challenging to deal with than the NVA.  Unlike the French we beat the dog shit out of the NVA , we won every military engagement of significance.

Good points. 

I will say though that when I think about the US fignting against its own citizenry, I usually imagine a distopian future where some kid is flying drone strikes against faceless targets 100's of miles away.  Maybe we need to include the ability for the public to own armed drones to fight tyranny, not being facetious at all.  

Quote:Not really.  Like I said, a infantryman and his rifle is the best combat system on the planet.  If military body armor developed to the point that modern small arms are ineffectual against a soldier, then your point will become much more valid.

Unfortunately I read this and immediately thought of kids going to school in bullet proof vests.  All it takes is big kevlar getting in the pockets of some politician.

[BmorePat87]

(02-19-2018, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm gonna go with cause Teacher of the Year. 

Serious question, does being voted your school's teacher of the year by the middle schoolers make you more of an expert than other teachers? 

[Griever]

(02-19-2018, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Anytime someone makes this argument my eyes roll so fast I get whiplash.  Does the Taliban have tanks, drones, bombers etc.?  No, and that's why they were so easily defeated and a footnote in history.

Pretty sure the context of this discussion is about our country

most gun owners who want to keep their guns no matter what will say they need it in case they have to "overthrow our tyranical government"

[GMDino]

(02-19-2018, 03:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm gonna go with cause Teacher of the Year. 

Why does a made up award make this teacher an expert on any particular topic other than what they teach?

Doesn't even mean I don't agree with some her of post....it means she carries no extra weight other than he agrees with her.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-19-2018, 03:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yep.  I sure was wrong to say you think you know more than everyone who disagrees with you..

Yep.

I love your, "I'm defeated but I'm gonna act like I'm not" routine.  Please don't bother denying, if it wasn't true you'd actually try addressing points being made.

(02-19-2018, 03:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: An uprising in the US would play out completely differently than in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. US troops wouldn't be a foreign presence. The bulk of the population would be on their side. There's no issue with culture or languages. We have an infrastructure in place to monitor these domestic threats and consistently take them out before they present a problem. 

 

This is all completely speculatory, thankfully, but I don't think it would go as neat and clean as you suggest.

(02-19-2018, 03:34 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Good points. 

I will say though that when I think about the US fignting against its own citizenry, I usually imagine a distopian future where some kid is flying drone strikes against faceless targets 100's of miles away.  Maybe we need to include the ability for the public to own armed drones to fight tyranny, not being facetious at all.

It has been interesting to see some (note to others I said some, not all or most) people who scoffed at the idea of government overreach by rightwingers under Obama are now making the same argument with Trump in office.

Quote:Unfortunately I read this and immediately thought of kids going to school in bullet proof vests.  All it takes is big kevlar getting in the pockets of some politician.

Nah, it's so unlikely to happen to you it's not even worthy of consideration.  Most tragically in this current shooting was how easily preventable it was.  The school, by policy, never reported this kids threats or other criminal acts because "muh school to prison pipeline".  The FBI screwed the pooch but not even investigating it and local law enforcement and the kid's neighbors never seemed to have moved forward in dealing with this kids criminal conduct.