Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 is it the word 'mass' that you object to... to labeling them 'mass shootings'? How about the word 'multiple'... is the label 'multiple shootings' one more palatable to you? What's in a word, hey? Oh wait, surely it's not that you want to just ignore all those other instances of gun deaths/gun violence, is it? . Not at all, as I said, they are being "ignored" already, likewise the "root cause" of most crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Not at all, as I said, they are being "ignored" already, likewise the "root cause" of most crime. well no! That's the point being made... they're not being ignored in that definition you clearly object to. You don't like the definition of mass shooting that actually includes them. Imagine that! You don't like that inclusion, so you label that definition a lie. Of course you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted December 5, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Is San Bernardino or Paris in the "region"? No it is not. Iraq, Syria, and now Afghanistan (with Taliban defecting to ISIS) is their region (check any map) - a region which the USA (with Canadian assistance for now) has driven into chaos, anarchy, revolution and now civil war. I suggest with what you have suggested as their motivations and the results of the Western reaction to those perceived motivations that you review your analysis of the situation. Watch some of those documentaries of what is happening on the ground and perhaps the joking "getting their 72 virgins" as their motivation for giving their lives to their cause will sound as hollow and self serving as it should be. It still surprises how some of the bright lights on this board have so little understanding of our current enemy. Perhaps spending more time researching and less time telling everyone how informed they are may benefit the accuracy and profundity of their missives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 well no! That's the point being made... they're not being ignored in that definition you clearly object to. You don't like the definition of mass shooting that actually includes them. Imagine that! You don't like that inclusion, so you label that definition a lie. Of course you do. Not at all, as most can delineate between innocent people being killed at random versus the greater amount of targeted killings by organized crime among themselves......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 The lunatics in this matter were making bombs. Bombs. Hundreds of bombs, Here let me spell that, its b o m b s. One of the posters who responded to me seems a tad confused between bombs and guns and seems to think if you regulate guns, bombs just go poof like terrorists just go poof. You can regulate what you can regulate. I don't accept the justification that just because you can't do everything to stop something means you don't need to do anything. That's just crap, in that case you might as well get rid of laws and police forces altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Not at all, as most can delineate between innocent people being killed at random versus the greater amount of targeted killings by organized crime among themselves......... most people can also delineate between a definition of mass shooting tied to reality and one you prefer that presumes to selectively ignore mass shootings that are an inconvenient truth to you... remember, "guns don't kill people in mass shootings... only the people you choose to recognize, they kill people in mass shootings"! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 most people can also delineate between a definition of mass shooting tied to reality and one you prefer that presumes to selectively ignore mass shootings that are an inconvenient truth to you... remember, "guns don't kill people in mass shootings... only the people you choose to recognize, they kill people in mass shootings"! . Let me know when CNN has dedicated 24/7 coverage to gangland shootings in Chicago or other urban centers among young black men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Let me know when CNN has dedicated 24/7 coverage to gangland shootings in Chicago or other urban centers among young black men. let me know when you're prepared to provide the media-coverage ratings scale/meter and underlying supporting metrics and qualifications that identifies the threshold for your definition of mass shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Derek 2.0, there was no lie about mass shootings. Of course, you claim it as a lie, but show no evidence of your own. You just don't like that it doesn't fit into your own narrative. You even claim that the stats include organized crime violence, which this study specifically removes. As well as domestic violence. You're just making things up on the fly to suit your own narrative. From the NY Times quoting an FBI report: WASHINGTON A report released by the F.B.I. on Wednesday confirmed what many Americans had feared but law enforcement officials had never documented: Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years. There were, on average, 16.4 such shootings a year from 2007 to 2013, compared with an average of 6.4 shootings annually from 2000 to 2006. In the past 13 years, 486 people have been killed in such shootings, with 366 of the deaths in the past seven years. In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000. (Shootings tied to domestic violence and gangs were not included.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html?_r=0 Edited December 5, 2015 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Derek 2.0, there was no lie about mass shootings. Of course, you claim it as a lie, but show no evidence of your own. You just don't like that it doesn't fit into your own narrative. You even claim that the stats include organized crime violence, which this study specifically removes. As well as domestic violence. You're just making things up on the fly to suit your own narrative. So on average, 50-60 people are killed in "mass shootings" (precluding domestic and gang violence) in a nation with ~9000 gun homicides a year.......the coverage of the other ~8950 killings a year is not proportional to the ~50-60 that die in "mass shootings" (that preclude domestic and gang violence)........thanks for proving my point, with a report that defines "mass shootings" outside domestic/gang related violence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 So on average, 50-60 people are killed in "mass shootings" (precluding domestic and gang violence) in a nation with ~9000 gun homicides a year.......the coverage of the other ~8950 killings a year is not proportional to the ~50-60 that die in "mass shootings" (that preclude domestic and gang violence)........thanks for proving my point, with a report that defines "mass shootings" outside domestic/gang related violence... The number of firearms deaths from all causes in the US is almost the same as motor vehicle deaths plus about 85,000 non fatal injuries, but one of them apparently needs regulation and the other doesn't, go figure. Carry on Crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 The number of Canadians still going to the United States for all reasons is not the same as Americans going to Canada, it is larger. They must like "crazy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Or they are upholding the USC......as written. There is a parallel between the US Constitution and the bible here. It's treated as the unalterable voice of righteousness. And it's being interpreted literally, without apparent regard for the context in which it was written. And it is most famously wielded by fundamentalists. And mostly by the same people Funny that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 US Constitution is the highest law in the land....we like that. Canada still gets American television, so don't worry about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Such an obsession for Canada, wondering how it contributes to the thread or if it just trolling. Should I report it? Would it make a difference? Just some thoughts. And no one commented on the media ransacking the 'crime scene' ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 The number of firearms deaths from all causes in the US is almost the same as motor vehicle deaths plus about 85,000 non fatal injuries, but one of them apparently needs regulation and the other doesn't, go figure. Carry on Crazy. Ownership of firearms is a guarantee under the United States Constitution, ownership of motor vehicles isn't (outside of property rights). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 It's at least as strong an endorsement as saying guns are in the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 There is a parallel between the US Constitution and the bible here. It's treated as the unalterable voice of righteousness. And it's being interpreted literally, without apparent regard for the context in which it was written. And it is most famously wielded by fundamentalists. And mostly by the same people Funny that. Such interpretation has been enshrined by the United States Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Ownership of firearms is a guarantee under the United States Constitution, ownership of motor vehicles isn't (outside of property rights). So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 So? You brought up the notion of regulating a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 You brought up the notion of regulating a right. Don't be so obtuse, there are already regulations restricting gun ownership from certain groups, but suspect terrorists aren't one of those groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Trouble is, it's not the way the rest of the world works. And it was their decision to spread their poison here. The consequences should be ones they don't like. We spread our poison on their soil long before they committed terrorist acts on our soil. I think their methods are despicable, I think our methods are despicable. It's a war where both sides are trying to impose their will on the other with violence, like most wars. Yes, I sympathize with many of their grievances towards us (which people here will ridicule me for & twist my words/meaning), I just disagree with their means of redressing them (targeting civilians), not to mention their ridiculous religious ideology. Islamic terror is basically a 21st century colonial revolt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Such interpretation has been enshrined by the United States Supreme Court. Yes. Just like Dan Brown, the neo-conservatives on the SCOTUS succeeded in divining meaning that had eluded scholars for 200 years. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. We're all saved. Good thing that they had this "special" group of jurists that could divine meaning differently than others, including earlier iterations of the SCOTUS!! The second amendment is now probably the only sentence in the English language where it's been decided that the first part in no way modifies the second. I was always taught that a sentence is supposed to express a single thought. I suppose the constitution was written by a band of morons who weren't aware of this. I will need to be more careful when I talk to my kids. If I say "Since you're sick, you don't have to go to school", they will rightly point out that the SCOTUS would claim that means they never have to go to school again. After all the first part of the sentence doesn't restrict the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 ....The second amendment is now probably the only sentence in the English language where it's been decided that the first part in no way modifies the second. Just think of it like your "Notwithstanding clause", which lets provinces ignore whatever the hell they want ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 Such an obsession for Canada, wondering how it contributes to the thread or if it just trolling. Should I report it? Would it make a difference? Just some thoughts. And no one commented on the media ransacking the 'crime scene' ? It's old hat now, and it just never seems to stop. Reporting it is probably a waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.