Another Mass Shooting

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From our school district superintendent

That's a nice sentiment, but since spree murders are a statistically insignificant threat (one is more likely to be struck dead by lightning), that money would be better spent on educational materials--for why the kids are actually there.

It wouldn't assure safety, anyway. Any maniac would just shoot the cop first.

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am sure there will be lots of disagreements, but Dr. Stone seems to be an expert in the field, so I thought his take an interesting one.

Shea, Shea, ideology trumps evidence on the far Right and Left.

[Gonzo]

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Shea, Shea, ideology trumps evidence on the far Right and Left.

Shmir, Shmir There is no 'far Left'.

There's barely a Left left.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

For those who understand that Kashmir is certain to be saying something gleefully idiotic, but can't be bothered to read the link and figure out, this time, just how fucking stupid it is: List including "spree" serial killers, and excluding most types of mass-event killings: school massacres, workplace killings, and mass domestic homicides.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I hope everyone can see how you've substituted a fake reductio ad absurdum for Kashmir's valid counter argument ...

You wouldn't let your students get away with such manouevres, but you yourself arrogate that privilege all too often.

Sorry if you felt left out, mick. Fine, then: The Jesus Whatsit, thedoc, AML, Kashmir, and mickthinks. Shitpoast frenzy complete!

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

nice fantasy strawman.

... think of the world of V for Vendetta. Fiction, yes, but possible.

Once again, when the topic turns to guns, you can't even keep track of what you're saying, never mind what other people are saying. And again with V for Vendetta as your argument from fantasy world. Is it the only fucking movie you've seen?

I think the question you should ask yourself is whether you have it in you not to be a moron. I don't think you are compelled to believe that, because a feather could kill someone if the pointy end was pushed hard into the ear of a person who was, like, tied up or something, it follows that we can't say a machine gun is more dangerous than a feather. That would be excruciatingly stupid, of course, but it's clearly the form of argument you prefer.

Originally Posted by Kashmir

Sure, a machine gun is likely to cause serious bodily harm if it is pointed at someone and the trigger is pulled.

But a kitchen knife is likely to cause serious bodily harm if plunged into someone.

A baseball bat is likely to cause serious bodily harm if whacked into another person.

A car . . . you get the idea.

Yes. The idea is that you're a moron. And if you can't help it, that's one thing. Can you?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Sorry if you felt left out, mick. Fine, then: The Jesus Whatsit, thedoc, AML, Kashmir, and mickthinks. Shitpoast frenzy complete!

Yes, that's what I mean by abusing your privileges here, Prof. Dismissing criticism of a champion of the in-crowd by calling it "shit-posting" will probably meet with the approval of the in-crowd. But you and I both know it's a bullshit manoeuvre.

[Clutch Munny]

I suspect that what will meet with only some approval is the relatively succinct way in which I pointed out the following: I actually explicitly debunked the link you cited; you ignored that debunking, and instead quoted an altogether different post as an illegitimate critique of the link.

Seriously, how do you make this shit up? Do you roll dice, or consciously consider what would be the weirdest confabulation to produce? Was my post also an illegitimate criticism of California Tanker? Was it also a perfect example of the view that it's immoral to be moral? Once that three-legged squirrel starts limping around the broken wheel in your head, mick, who the fuck knows?

In any case, I doubt this will meet with very much approval, for the simple reason that I think most people are heartily sick of your pathologies, and are frustrated when others occasionally encourage your fixations by taking the bait. For that, I do apologize.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Jesus Harold Christ, mick, can't you take your incessant whining and nitpicking out of a thread about murdered babies? Or is it really all about you?

[ZEZOZE]

well more than he is doing it.

i'm using these dead kids to make points.

is somebody not?

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From our school district superintendent

Jesus. That's straight up hysteria. 66 cents a day per child is a lot of money, especially for a school district that almost had to close down schools for budget reasons.

That kind of money could be used to provide meals, medical care, counseling, special education, or any of a billion other things that would do so much more good than having a cop wandering around the halls of elementary schools. Not only is the risk infinitesimal, but even if something did happen, having a cop there isn't necessarily going to make much difference anyway.

You guys should sue CNN to foot the bill for that or something. That sort of bullshit media is not only responsible for increasing the risks of similar crimes, but they're creating the perception that they're a much bigger risk than they are, too.

[ImGod]

If the school would have had bullet resistant glass, the shooter wouldn't have gotten in when he did. He broke a window to open the door. I think they might have noticed him on camera banging away with gun trying to get in and called the police.

However, it doesn't help before/after school or during recess.

Is that cheaper than hiring a police officer for every school in a district?

This issue becomes like the TSA stuff. Too much, too late.

[Ensign Steve]

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Once again, when the topic turns to guns, you can't even keep track of what you're saying, never mind what other people are saying. And again with V for Vendetta as your argument from fantasy world. Is it the only fucking movie you've seen?

I don't consider it an argument, merely an illustration. Never use The Handmaid's Tale, 1984, or any other piece of fiction, I'll be watching.

Also, nice job ignoring my salient points. But of course you would.

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I think the question you should ask yourself is whether you have it in you not to be a moron. I don't think you are compelled to believe that, because a feather could kill someone if the pointy end was pushed hard into the ear of a person who was, like, tied up or something, it follows that we can't say a machine gun is more dangerous than a feather. That would be excruciatingly stupid, of course, but it's clearly the form of argument you prefer.

Do you have it in you to not build ludicrous strawmen?

Of course guns are more dangerous than other things, and some kinds of guns are more dangerous than others--would any sane person argue against this?
An average gun is not a super-weapon, orders of magnitude more dangerous than "innocuous" things that can be used to ill ends. That was my point.

You don't seem to like that fact, though. Maybe that's why you resorted to the ever entertaining ad hominem logical fallacy instead of refuting the relevance of my link re killing lots of people in gun-free or limited-gun cultures?

How about you do that?

Oh, and because it bears repeating: I don't own a gun. I have no desire to. However, I have held and fired one within the last year. I have practical experience with them, and have since I was a kid. I can see what they are.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Anastasia Beaverhausen

Jesus Harold Christ, mick, can't you take your incessant whining and nitpicking frequent criticism out of a thread about murdered babies??

I've fixed that for you, AB.

I get that my criticism of privileged bad behaviour at is more frequent than you would wish, and I'm sorry that you don't care about the point I am making here, that Clutch has used a false argument to silence an unpopular voice.

But I have no time for the hidden premise in your (rather whiney) post, that fair argument is not necessary in a discussion of the mass shooting of Newtown school children.


Or is it really all about you
lol It's just the ad hominems that are all about me

[Kashmir]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

I suspect that what will meet with only some approval is the relatively succinct way in which I pointed out the following: I actually explicitly debunked the link you cited; you ignored that debunking, and instead quoted an altogether different post as an illegitimate critique of the link.

Seriously, how do you make this shit up? Do you roll dice, or consciously consider what would be the weirdest confabulation to produce? Was my post also an illegitimate criticism of California Tanker? Was it also a perfect example of the view that it's immoral to be moral? Once that three-legged squirrel starts limping around the broken wheel in your head, mick, who the fuck knows?

In any case, I doubt this will meet with very much approval, for the simple reason that I think most people are heartily sick of your pathologies, and are frustrated when others occasionally encourage your fixations by taking the bait. For that, I do apologize.

Wait, what? You think mickthinks and I are the same person?

No, no, no.

If you doubt me, ask Liv.

[Clutch Munny]

Gender and gun violence « Feminist Philosophers

[ChuckF]

Proof of Your Manhood - The Man Card from Bushmaster

[Ymir's blood]

I was going to comment about the man-related questionnaire and revoking someone else's mancard but then I saw this:

Click for Man Card Unless Your Scared?

What about my scared?

[ChuckF]

Yeah I typically kind of avoid the usual tiny penis jokes because of the bodyshaming dimension, but seriously, how insecure does a person have to be to want - included with purchase of an assault rifle - an actual card he can carry around and show people that says he is a man.

[ZEZOZE]

well i admit i totally want that card. it would compliment my official boob inspector credentials.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Kashmir

An average gun is not a super-weapon, orders of magnitude more dangerous than "innocuous" things that can be used to ill ends. That was my point.

Not only does the history of firearms and their development stand completely contrary to that point, it's also completely refuted and ignored by those who claim that having more guns more readily available would somehow result in fewer gun-induced deaths. After all, while many make the 'argument' that a sufficiently skilled and motivated attacker could also kill a lot of people with a machete, table leg, or bobby pin, I don't see many people making the argument that we could be safer from such attacks if only we all carried dueling swords again.

[Ensign Steve]

Jesus christ i don't even know what to say about the "tough looking fifth graders"

[BrotherMan]

They already done took it down.

[Vivisectus]

Of course guns are more dangerous than other things, and some kinds of guns are more dangerous than others--would any sane person argue against this?
An average gun is not a super-weapon, orders of magnitude more dangerous than "innocuous" things that can be used to ill ends. That was my point.

So guns are more dangerous, easy to use and efficient, but according to you not more dangerous, easy and efficient enough to make a distinction between them and, say, axes, regulate according to that distinction, and expect a drop in the overall murder rate and hope to at least make these kind of atrocities harder to commit?

I don't know about that. It seems that in western european countries where most guns are banned, the murder rate hovers around a quarter of that of the USA. What factors other than the prevalence of firepower do you think accounts for that?