Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:04:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

Areas with gun crime problems pass strict gun laws. People from those areas go to areas without strict gun laws buy the guns and bring them back. Like fireworks.

Sorry I forget that I need to spell it all out for you.

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:32:
The whole idea that weapons are needed to keep the federal government honest is a nutter's fantasy, a century out of date. You think some militia is going to topple the tyrannical reign of noted socialist Comrade Obama? That's just sad.

I didn't remove half the world to suit my argument, I estimated where is comparable in terms of poverty, law enforcement and such like and came up with western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. I haven't performed scientific research for obvious reasons, but I think that's a fair comparison and there's correlation alright. Russia? It has tight gun laws, but it also has notoriously slack policing. I thought Canada had tighter gun laws and certainly has lower gun ownership. Plus, they're too polite to shot someone.

You can't criticise me for not accounting for these variables and then criticise me because I did account for them. The reason they help my argument is because I'm right.

As for mental health, it seems everyone's talking about it (as SMA says). Certainly I'm all in favour of making healthcare more widely available but I gather large segments of the US population aren't and I think they may overlap with those who don't want gun control. But the big problem is ... what exactly is supposed to be done? Unless crazy people line up to be registered as unfit to own a gun, it's not going to do a whole lot. Certainly if someone has a history of violent conduct then the checks and limits should be stricter but 99.99% of the population aren't checked to see if they're crazy or not.

As a liberal, I'd actually quite like guns to be available. However, the principal of "that's why we can't have nice things" means that it's trouble and having anything more deadly than shotguns and such like will, and all too regularly has, caused nothing but tears.

Prez wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:46:
I think part of the problem with the issue of gun control is that both sides tend to make arguments that are extreme (almost certainly more extreme than they otherwise would if everyone viewed the issue objectively) resulting in a polarizing and pointless debate. Sure, there are frighteningly-obsessed gun nuts who believe they should be able to own absolutely anything without restriction, just as on the opposite side there are gun-banning obsessed kooks who actually believe life in America would be a bowl of cherries if only we disarmed everyone but the military. But do these views really make up the majority of those of either side? I'd say an emphatic "no" myself. Yet both sides enter the debate as if the other is made up of the extreme view exclusively.

I fall on the pro-ownership side of the debate, but when someone makes a compelling argument for new sensible restrictions that could have a positive effect on keeping firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them I listen. As it stands, I could go either way on the "assault" weapons ban (in quotes because they are not really assault weapons by definition) as I personally don't feel the need to own anything larger than the sidearms I currently own, but the argument needs to be a little more substantive than "well, who really NEEDS an AR-15?" for me.

The biggest negative to the ban debate for me is that in reality the lion's share of mass shootings in America's history that were done with something other than pistols easily could have been carried out almost exactly the same way and have been just has horrific with nothing but pistols (the two major exceptions off the top of my head being the Texas Bell Tower Sniper of 1966 and the DC/Beltway Sniper of 2002). I shoot at a range where on certain days long semi-auto rifles are allowed on the range as well as pistols. From this experience I learned that someone with minimal training can put just as many rounds down range with a pistol in roughly the same time frame. In other words, what people are hoping will be the result of any long semi-auto rifle ban (lower body counts in mass shootings) will most certainly NOT happen. Which I fear could take us inexorably closer to the mass ban/super strict regulation of every firearm to which I am adamantly opposed. I am in no way a "gun nut", and I believe it is governement's right and responisbility to regulate firearm ownership sensibly and lawfully to protect the public at large, but I am certainly in favor of keeping my right to defend myself and others from the huge number of morally defunt and insane cretins roaming the streets of every city.

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 06:56:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:23:

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Extremist aren't the same thing. I never equated the two. Enjoy your strawman though. Personally I think the world would be better off without religion but people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses beliefs imo anyway.

It isn't a strawman. A strawman is you constantly saying that someone wants to ban all guns when literally no rational human being has said this, nor has anyone in politics (not that most are rational), nor has Obama.

A strawman isn't "Islam is evil, all it does is kill people!" being ok but "guns don't kill, people that want to kill kill!"



How have we strayed so far from RollinThundr saying racist things in a thread that began with him whining that he's not racist?

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 17:04:
You're the person being racist, don't call me intolerant because I don't like it. I'm intolerant of bigotry and some diary products, that's it. The reason liberals seem so annoying to you is because you disagree with them. If you disagreed with Rush L, Bill O'R and their pals, you'd find them pretty hateful.

As for logic, well, compare murder rates in other developed countries and try claiming you are the logical one with a straight face. The countries which don't allow inanimate objects only useful for killing which have lower murder rates. How could this be? What logical explanation is there? I wonder! And why is it that fewer criminals actually own guns in a country which doesn't give them away to anyone opening a bank account? There must be a logical explanation but my tiny brain can't find it.

Ah but yes, after the Dunblane massacre our government took away our guns and some serious bad shit followed there. Except it didn't. Damn libtard logic, just because it makes sense and is repeatedly proven right, suddenly it's a good thing. Blasted communist libtards!

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:11:
RollinThundr, you're the first to get angry when people talk negatively about Republican Culture, but you defend someone talking negatively about Black Culture.
Inevitably you usually come back to "tolerate my intolerance you stupid libs!" or "freedom of speech you tards!"

But whenever anyone says something critical about something you like you pretty well explode. Usually with accusations of someone being a lib, a tard, or a libtard. Because in your world people either agree with you or are a mentally handicapped liberal.

It's fascinating. Please donate your brain to science (tomorrow, if possible.)

Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 16:01:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:53:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:42:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

I think both you and I know what he was referring to. But that's ok, write off anything the man has to say because you think he's racist.

I'm not particularly interested in what a bigot has to say but I haven't written anything of his off in this thread.

As for what he was referring to ... that's the point! He referred to all these negative things by stating a race as if these are intrinsic to said race. Can you really not see what's wrong with that?

Of course he can't. White culture is all about saying racist things then denying you're racist.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 15:33:
But the original statement from David Starkey said black, not rap culture. Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:27:

Azusa wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:18:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. I think he meant that sort of criminal rap culture, but he said black as if it's the same thing and that's racist.

How so? I agree that his words as written were a racist statement. But it seems you are suggesting here that even if he hadn't said 'black people', but had instead referred to a culture, he's still a racist?

Racism is a belief that a group of people are inferior because of the physically identifiable characteristics of their race. It has nothing to do with culture. Culture is a choice, race is not. The fact that race isn't a choice is the singular reason that racism is such an abhorrent idea. Applying that same level of stigma to someone because they addressed a perceived problem in a culture is dishonest.

Would it also be racist to suggest a culture of cannibal Asians was a 'bad' culture?

If he'd referred to a by-choice culture then it wouldn't have been racist. The reason he is racist is because he heavily implied that in general, black people are of this culture because of their race.

I'd suggest that a culture of cannibalism is bad regardless of race, much like a culture of criminality is bad regardless of race.

This is what he could have said:

What's happened is that a substantial section of the Chavs that you wrote about have a culture of criminality. The looters are people who have come to see crime as normal. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion

That is, I believe, what he meant. However, he used a race to describe this culture and it is very clearly very racist to assume that black = criminal!


edit:
Geez RollinThundr are you kidding me? That these rappers are most often black does NOT mean that black people are most often criminals. I am debating and the reason I'm talking about racism? BECAUSE OF ALL THE RACISM.

I am debating, you are playing the 'playing the X card' card.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:12:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:07:

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. If he uses black to mean some sort of criminal rap culture then he's racist in a slightly different way.

That's why context is important. It seems to me he's more talking about the culture itself, kids with their pants down to their ankles, gang banging etc.

Yes... And he described this as 'black'. There is no one black culture but his implication is that there is, and it's criminality. Hence, racist.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 14:05:
That is the context. He said black. If he uses black to mean some sort of criminal rap culture then he's racist in a slightly different way.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 13:27:
Racism is only going away because people bring it up. When it wasn't brought up, we had slavery.

He isn't afraid to speak his mind and he doesn't sugar coat things which is great, but what is in his mind is racist.

Talking about the London 'riots' (looting) a couple of years ago (a chav is a young working class/under class person, typically white):

What's happened is that a substantial section of the Chavs that you [author Owen Jones] wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion

That's racist. What the hell has white guilt, white shame or any other strawman got to do with this? He said that the reason people were committing crimes is because they were acting like black people. That's not pretending anything, that's not guilt, there's no grey area here; this is black and white racism, tortured pun intended. This isn't the only example.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:39:
We don't have the Euro, and Starkey's kind of racist. I didn't know he was known outside these borders, he's a bit of a nobody now - especially since the whole racist thing.

Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 11:08:
The line between a democracy and a republic is so vague, it might as well not exist. I'm not aware of any country that can be described as one and not described as the other. Even in the UK, where "republican" means someone opposed to the Royal Family, we operate as a republic. We also operate as a democracy, just not a direct democracy.

I didn't know about the 3/4 rule. That seems wrong, why should a voter in Wyoming get about 50x the power of someone in California? That's still a form of democracy, it just moves the bar from 50% to 75%. That's still mob rule. Any system where the population has any say in the law is mob rule, and these are better systems than the alternatives.

Quboid wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 18:37:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 14:22:

Cutter wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:49:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 13:06:

Creston wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:
What is this logic you're spewing, Seattle Times. The gun lobby and its bought-and-paid-for assholes Representatives have no time for this kind of prattle!

Creston

Must suck to hate the constitution and to be afraid of tools that do nothing on their own unless a person is using them.

Not as much as it sucks to be a paranoid tin-foil hat wearing bigot and racist though.

Oh Cutter and your strawmen adhom bullshit. At least sweetheart try and be original in the future. I know I know, if you believe in fiscal conservatism and the US constitution, you're clearly racist, a bigot, and insensitive to the awesome benefits of "progress' and cultural Marxism that the left is so fond of. blah blah blah Same ol liberal rhetoric.

Guns don't kill people by themselves, someone has to pull the trigger to shoot. That's fact, you can blame video games, the NRA, whatever, at the end of the day the person using the gun decides to pull the trigger, therefore said person is responsible. There's that big R word that folks like you hate Cutter, Responsibility.

Ahahahahaha! Great work, the subtle blending of accusation of strawman leading into a massive strawman argument of your own is trolling of the highest quality. Kudos on your satirical impression of a Fox News talking head. Nice use of "comrade" too, slipping in such finely crafted nonsense isn't as easy as you make it look. And to top it off, Godwin's law! Brilliant!

Beamer wrote on Mar 18, 2013, 17:48:
I wonder if people used the Hitler and Mao argument when the government took away the only weapons that would actually stop them from doing anything - automatic weapons.

They took it away when most of this board was alive.


No one ever seems to bring that up. I do, repeatedly. That's when RollinThundr usually exits a gun discussion.