School Shooting in Connecticut

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:40 AM, RichieBees said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:31 AM, RichieBees said:

iain c is the man

iain c is the man fuck mrE and randysicko :D

 

Oh, you meant it as a positive. Like "Iain C is very good." I thought you were accusing Iain C of being what Althusser would call a Repressive State Apparatus. Which would be sort of an ideologically compromised position for Iain C, I reckon.

 

BUT I GET IT NOW

 

fake edit: hi sup

 

real edit: :incredibly pretentious laugh, hi-5s Judith Butler:

Edited December 19, 2012 by baph

  keltoi said:

  MisterE said:

ok i'll bow out of this thread and stop crapping it up myself. you guys can continue with the 'guns are for killing people' 'no they aren't' and 'guns are evil, their owners are f'ing crazy psychos' 'who ever said guns/gun owners are evil?' thing. i actually agree with lain C, in this case, that nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue.

multiple lines of conversation can/do happen on internets.

 

you're little to and fro shitsling with iaian was more relevant somehow?

 

 

 

maybe you missed the larger point about hypocrisy in general that i was making. he even gave a good example himself- liberals who are for gun control, but either supportive or accepting of what have now unquestioningly become Obama's wars.

because all liberals=gun control.

 

because liberalism is clearly defined according to rigorous guidelines.

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:42 AM, keltoi said:

can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

if one could actually say this is the most peaceful time in human history when collectively we hold enough nuclear power to destroy the world 10x over then yes apparently some people can feel this way, but i would argue they are living under a stockholm syndrome induced delusion

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:47 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:42 AM, keltoi said:

can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

if one could actually say this is the most peaceful time in human history when collectively we hold enough nuclear power to destroy the world 10x over then yes apparently some people can feel this way, but i would argue they are living under a stockholm syndrome induced delusion

 

 

i think chen posted a really good article on this very statement a while back. it was a review of someone's recent publication.

 

basically "peaceful" is ephemeral as shit.

 

can you measure it in destruction? social shifts? poverty? psychological effects?

 

if you are merely stating "there are less officially-declared wars between sovereign governments" and thus peace, then I would agree with that definition of peace. but i dont really think you can apply it any further than that.

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:43 AM, MisterE said:

  keltoi said:

  MisterE said:

ok i'll bow out of this thread and stop crapping it up myself. you guys can continue with the 'guns are for killing people' 'no they aren't' and 'guns are evil, their owners are f'ing crazy psychos' 'who ever said guns/gun owners are evil?' thing. i actually agree with lain C, in this case, that nobody is going to change anyone else's mind on this issue.

multiple lines of conversation can/do happen on internets.

 

you're little to and fro shitsling with iaian was more relevant somehow?

 

 

maybe you missed the larger point about hypocrisy in general that i was making. he even gave a good example himself- liberals who are for gun control, but either supportive or accepting of what have now unquestioningly become Obama's wars.

 

i wasn't criticising the discussion you were having with iain but you seemed to be putting down all other discussion on your way out the door.

re:most peaceful time

i've heard this argument before. statistically nowadays the chance of getting killed/assaulted is the smallest that has ever been. i think it was calculated as a proportion of violence related deaths of all deaths.

Edited December 19, 2012 by eugene

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:50 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:47 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:42 AM, keltoi said:

can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

if one could actually say this is the most peaceful time in human history when collectively we hold enough nuclear power to destroy the world 10x over then yes apparently some people can feel this way, but i would argue they are living under a stockholm syndrome induced delusion

 

 

i think chen posted a really good article on this very statement a while back. it was a review of someone's recent publication.

 

basically "peaceful" is ephemeral as shit.

 

can you measure it in destruction? social shifts? poverty? psychological effects?

 

if you are merely stating "there are less officially-declared wars between sovereign governments" and thus peace, then I would agree with that definition of peace. but i dont really think you can apply it any further than that.

 

i haven't read the whole thread and only joined in last few pages so i'm obv going over old ground then. but yeah this is what i'm getting at also.

 

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:06 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

 

not in my opinion.

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:07 AM, keltoi said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:06 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

 

not in my opinion.

 

One gun cannot kill millions of people at the drop of a hat. A missile is not a gun, nor is a bomb ..do I seriously need to be explaining this?? Nuclear bombs are built with one purpose - human casualities on a horrifyingly mass scale.

 

edit - I still can't believe you are actually serious with that joke of a comment. Pathetic is the only other word that comes to mind to describe your "reasoning"

Edited December 19, 2012 by RandySicko

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:42 AM, keltoi said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:26 AM, compson said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

i think you'd struggle to argue that creation of nukes has saved lives. the nukes that've already been launched to this point in time have killed people, no question... and the nukes that haven't been launched yet will probably kill people eventually...

 

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

what nukes that haven't yet been launched? that's my point, if you launch a nuke now, your country will be annihilated, so it doesn't happen + this is the most peaceful time in human history

 

ok so we know they exist but none are launched due to the threat of annihilation from super powers dictating 'ours are bigger than yours' or 'we can have them but you can't'... this is not peace.

 

brings me back to what i said earlier... can you truly live in peace knowing that the majority of your neighbours are armed?

 

yes because a human being can be weapon of death... so to say you cannot live in peace because other humans could harm you is to say you can't live with humans

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:20 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:07 AM, keltoi said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:06 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

 

not in my opinion.

 

One gun cannot kill millions of people at the drop of a hat. A missile is not a gun, nor is a bomb ..do I seriously need to be explaining this?? Nuclear bombs are built with one purpose - human casualities on a horrifyingly mass scale.

and assault rifles?

  Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

because all liberals=gun control.

 

because liberalism is clearly defined according to rigorous guidelines.

i didn't say that. i said 'liberals who are for gun control'. i didn't say 'all liberals are for gun control'. this is beside the fact that it's pretty well known that most gun control advocates are left wing. the point is that if you are a liberal who is for gun control, but doesn't mind obama's wars, you are a hypocrite. if you hated bush for being a warmonger, but don't mind obama's wars, you are a hypocrite. if you were one of those people who criticized bush all the live long day for invading 'our' privacy, by setting up provisions to allow the government to wire-tap in on phone conversations of known terrorists and their associates, but this doesn't bother you enough to speak out against:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

then you a hypocrite of epic proportions. if any of this describes you, then you have no moral ground to talk about gun control as if your stance is that of moral superiority, and you actually care about people getting hurt by guns. i know fully well it does describes LOTS of liberals. if you are one of the ones who actually cried foul when obama ramped up drone use to kill people by pushing a button, or over the fact that his war policy seems exactly like bush's, if not worse, or over the fact that he's having a database built to store every single thing we all ever say/do in it, fine, fair enough.

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:21 AM, LimpyLoo said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:20 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:07 AM, keltoi said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:06 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

 

not in my opinion.

 

One gun cannot kill millions of people at the drop of a hat. A missile is not a gun, nor is a bomb ..do I seriously need to be explaining this?? Nuclear bombs are built with one purpose - human casualities on a horrifyingly mass scale.

and assault rifles?

You tell me

  keltoi said:

i wasn't criticising the discussion you were having with iain but you seemed to be putting down all other discussion on your way out the door.

 

yeah i guess i did. but at this point its the same thing back and forth, over and over. anyway, i'm really gonna try to jump out now because it just seems unproductive and i've met my personal being an asshole quota. :} Edited December 19, 2012 by MisterE

I just realized that this country has been bombing the shit out of the middle east and killing kids for years and nobody gives a shit. I dont want to put value on human life, innocent people dying is horrible but if people were this outraged about the dead middle eastern children there wouldn't be this easier for this country to go to war.

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:22 AM, MisterE said:

  Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

because all liberals=gun control.

 

because liberalism is clearly defined according to rigorous guidelines.

i didn't say that. i said 'liberals who are for gun control'. i didn't say 'all liberals are for gun control'. this is beside the fact that it's pretty well known that most gun control advocates are left wing. the point is that if you are a liberal who is for gun control, but doesn't mind obama's wars, you are a hypocrite. if you hated bush for being a warmonger, but don't mind obama's wars, you are a hypocrite. if you were one of those people who criticized bush all the live long day for invading 'our' privacy, by setting up provisions to allow the government to wire-tap in on phone conversations of known terrorists and their associates, but this doesn't bother you enough to speak out against:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

then you a hypocrite of epic proportions. if any of this describes you, then you have no moral ground to talk about gun control as if your stance is that of moral superiority, and you actually care about people getting hurt by guns. i know fully well it does describes LOTS of liberals. if you are one of the ones who actually cried foul when obama ramped up drone use to kill people by pushing a button, or over the fact that his war policy seems exactly like bush's, if not worse, or over the fact that he's having a database built to store every single thing we all ever say/do in it, fine, fair enough.

 

I think you're touching on stuff that is on a whole different level than many people here can even comprehend. Most don't even know what the NDAA is

Edited December 19, 2012 by RandySicko

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:35 AM, YO303 said:

I just realized that this country has been bombing the shit out of the middle east and killing kids for years and nobody gives a shit. I dont want to put value on human life, innocent people dying is horrible but if people were this outraged about the dead middle eastern children there wouldn't be this easier for this country to go to war.

 

No one went this crazy over WACO even... and that was the government killing our own women and children.

I seem to remember a guy named Tim McVeigh going crazy over WACO

I meant that there was not as big of a public outrage over the fact that innocent women and children were killed by their own government as there is with the events in Newtown. WACO is a whole different can of worms though

Edited December 19, 2012 by RandySicko

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:35 AM, YO303 said:

I just realized that this country has been bombing the shit out of the middle east and killing kids for years and nobody gives a shit. I dont want to put value on human life, innocent people dying is horrible but if people were this outraged about the dead middle eastern children there wouldn't be this easier for this country to go to war.

 

Everyone knows that America lives are worth more than Middle East lives. Although I'm not sure what the exact conversion rate is as haven't checked NASDAQ this morning.

 

(/dark satire)

  On 12/19/2012 at 1:06 AM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/19/2012 at 12:08 AM, keltoi said:

randy sicko [shudder] also said that noone should be allowed nukes but defends his right to hand held weaponry. nations killing nations, people killing people. the only real difference is scale. i mean a missile is a big fucking gun isn't it?

 

 

What a terrible and desperate analogy.

And yet more relevant and apt than anything you've contributed to this thread thus far.

i dont know what to think about this situation until the south park guys have done an episode on it

im sure the truth is somewhere in the middle (LIBERTARIANISM)

Nukes...

That's something we sure as hell don't need. I would be in favor of total nuclear disarmament. But if we're to do it throughout the world, the US should fully disarm first. We were the only country to use a nuke in a time of war - when president Truman gave the order to drop the warhead on Japan in 1945. So it's only appropriate that we take the initiative to disarm.

I scoff whenever I hear a news report of North Korea launching a rocket in the air and claim that it's in "violation of international law" for them to have nukes, and therefore it's time to panic. But that's a double standard, given the size of nuclear stockpiles we hold. My same sentiment applies when they talk about Iran in their "uranium enrichment" programs.

As for civilian access to small arms in the US, the banning of assault weapons and magazines that exceed 10 rounds might be a step in the right direction. Ironic that this statement is coming from a gun owner, but it could be a step to a real solution to mass shootings. We should also get more serious about counseling for mental health.

This may or may not be my last post in this thread, but we'll see.

fuck obamas taking away assault guns next step forced vaccinations and FEMA deathcamps

e: i have it on very good authroity (strong source) that there have been millinos of train carriages made with shackles, and also millinos of coffins attained by the CDC/FEMA so beware guys put all ur money onto gold and listen to glen beck

Edited December 19, 2012 by RichieBees