Connecticut shooting, gun control laws?

[Supermodel From Paris]

I don't think SFP said that at all, but thanks for showing me exactly what he meant.

I hope sincerely this is sarcasm. i'm American and I'm subject to everything I said in my post. It is an honest assessment of my own country, and I was trying to explain why people were saying your post was offensive when it really wasn't intended to be.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I never said any of that. And I'm talking from personal experience. When a portuguese person wants to start a conversation with me about cultural differences in America and Portugal I am (or was, rather) unprepared, while he seemed to know an awful lot about the US. This made the conversations very one-sided and assumptive, which is why Americans feel a little bit attacked in discussions like this one.

You're still generalizing millions of people, which is stereotyping, which is ignorant.

Well yeah cause you can kill spiders in other ways, but if you're scared of guns, how else are you going to protect yourself from guns? More guns or other weapons would really be the only way it seems. Unless you can think of some other ways?.

You're missing the point; if people would be scared of guns, they'd be AGAINST guns because they're scared of it. Why would they be in favor of something they don't like?

I don't think SFP said that at all, but thanks for showing me exactly what he meant.

"Americans get so angry when you insult America because all Americans are the same and they all do this"

*I get upset at his stereotyping*

"OH LOOK AT THAT ANGRY OFFENDED AMERICAN LOOK HOW RIGHT I AM AND HOW DUMB THEY ARE!"

Nice job derailing the thread, by the way.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

OK, then how about this: I'm talking about you. You are an ignorant gun-totin' murican. I'm no longer stereotyping!

 

[Biz_R_0]

I don't even own a gun. You made an assumption based off of the American stereotype. And somehow I'm the ignorant one when I've been treating both of you as individuals when you've been treating me as an "American".

In an attempt to rerail the thread, I'm going to quote the last relevant response:

Yes, I want people to have that ability. Then the authorities could take a look at my claim, interview others and see if it holds any weight, and if it does they could take the matter further. And if they (law enforcement, law, state, and mental health professionals) decide I'm full of crap, or that I'm wrong, then great, at least we investigated the issue.

Do you know how many mass murders could have been prevented that way? These things never come out of nowhere. People, often family members and neighbors/acquaintances or coworkers or teachers, can tell when someone is disturbed or a "ticking time bomb." We need to give them a way to report this and we need to give the state power to investigate these claims.

So yes, you bet your *** I'm in favor of allowing citizens to report someone they think is "off."

Most of the time, by the time these types of people "cause a disturbance" it's too late.

 

[Tesh]

Didn't read thread, but I know people went into the whole mental health and "people kill people" routine, but I think the world got a very clear comparison that same day. Crazy man attacks 20 children with knife, all alive, only a few in critical condition IIRC. Crazy man attacks 20 children with gun, all dead without a chance.

Gun control is a pretty valid issue. There are gonna be crazy bad people no matter what, and everything should be done to limit the damage they will do when they try something like this. Weighing self-defense vs guns falling into the wrong hands easily is what you should be thinking about.

Lets not forget that Adam Lanza tried to buy and gun and couldn't (apparently), but was able to get one because his mother owned one for self-defense or hunting or whatever.

I never saw the point of killing defenseless animals with high tech weaponry for sport anyway. Get a bow and arrow if you are such a tough guy imo.

 

[Alphicans]

I haven't been treating you in any way... Stop getting so emotionally invested in this conversation. You're making points and I am assessing these points. I mean yeah I assumed you were american, but that didn't change how I am talking to you. I've literally made NO generalizations about americans, only generalizations that would apply to any population in the same scenario as america is in. Yeah if you're afraid of guns, then ideally the answer would to no longer own a gun, but the problem is when 1/3 of the population owns a gun (meaning virtually every person knows at least one person, probably more, who owns a gun), guns just won't disappear. The media produces fear about guns which might make people realize gun ownership is bad, but at the same time it makes them realize how many people own guns and then they become scared so they buy a gun for self defense.

 

[Biz_R_0]

"I literally made no generalizations about America, I just made generalizations about literally every human being on Earth, because that's so much better."

Do you really not get it? No generalizations. Ever. They are not okay, you cannot prove that they are true and you're basing your entire point off of it.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Why, because you say so? lol

 

[Alphicans]

I guess the entire field of psychology is a total joke

Oh and by extension so is sociology and anthropology

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

There are definitely helpful generalizations. If there weren't, no one would feel like they needed a gun.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I guess the entire field of psychology is a total joke

Oh and by extension so is sociology and anthropology

I never said any of those things. I said that you cannot prove what you're saying and you're making some really big generalizations. Can you prove that yours is true? Can you prove that being scared of guns would make people get a gun? Can you prove that the anti-gun media is making people pro-guns? Because right now you're just making generalizations and calling it "psychology" when it's really just a confident guess.

Anyway, nice job derailing the thread, the discussion was so boring and on topic before you showed up.

 

[Delta-cod]

Someone's pretty mad.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'm gonna just go ahead and quote the last relevant response to try and rerail the thread:

Didn't read thread, but I know people went into the whole mental health and "people kill people" routine, but I think the world got a very clear comparison that same day. Crazy man attacks 20 children with knife, all alive, only a few in critical condition IIRC. Crazy man attacks 20 children with gun, all dead without a chance.

Gun control is a pretty valid issue. There are gonna be crazy bad people no matter what, and everything should be done to limit the damage they will do when they try something like this. Weighing self-defense vs guns falling into the wrong hands easily is what you should be thinking about.

Lets not forget that Adam Lanza tried to buy and gun and couldn't (apparently), but was able to get one because his mother owned one for self-defense or hunting or whatever.

I never saw the point of killing defenseless animals with high tech weaponry for sport anyway. Get a bow and arrow if you are such a tough guy imo.

 

[Teran]

I think people should consider other defence mechanisms like panic rooms in combination with sarin gas. Also rigging your garden with mines or just generally rigging plastic explosives here and there is sure to finish off those pesky *******s.

Also is it just me or is psychotic mass murder always committed by white people?

Seriously minority groups may be up there in the petty department, but then that's the keyword. Petty. The truth is that well...

white people are ****ed up.

Really ****ed up.

More than the Japanese.

Well...

Okay maybe not.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Probably because people going insane in relatively peaceful areas is more newsworthy than someone going insane in the ghetto.

 

[Luco]

I guess the entire field of psychology is a total joke

Oh and by extension so is sociology and anthropology

Ironically, my mum is an anthropologist who has some issues with the field of psychology.

I'd just like to point two things out biz:

if the media swayed people they'd be swaying them against guns.

edit: Alphicans, you're generalizing the actions of people way too much.

Now I may not have experience with your news channels so hey there might be a chance you're right but that looks like a generalization to me, followed by telling alph off for generalization. o.O

The other thing is... you're asking SFP to try to prove his point with proper evidence. Well can you? Can you prove that the media will only make people anti-gun? Can you prove your side of the issue?

I'm not gonna buy in to the argument itself, just wanted to point out some fallacies that I noted.

Annddd..... *puts up flame shield* I'm outta here!

 

[Biz_R_0]

Now I may not have experience with your news channels so hey there might be a chance you're right but that looks like a generalization to me, followed by telling alph off for generalization. o.O

I'm not saying they are, I'm saying if they did, then logically they'd be swayed in the direction the media would want them to be. He just kept saying "no, fear = own gun because that's how people work [citation needed]!"

The other thing is... you're asking SFP to try to prove his point with proper evidence. Well can you? Can you prove that the media will only make people anti-gun? Can you prove your side of the issue?

What point? Don't generalize an entire country/planet? Proof that people are different: I disagree with them. That wouldn't happen otherwise.

 

[Gene]

Also is it just me or is psychotic mass murder always committed by white people?

Seriously minority groups may be up there in the petty department, but then that's the keyword. Petty. The truth is that well...

white people are ****ed up.

Really ****ed up.

More than the Japanese.

Well...

Okay maybe not.

I died.

If you think about it this is actually pretty accurate (the human race in general). After all murder is our favorite pastime.

 

[Luco]

I'm not saying they are, I'm saying if they did, then logically they'd be swayed in the direction the media would want them to be. He just kept saying "no, fear = own gun because that's how people work [citation needed]!"



What point? Don't generalize an entire country/planet? Proof that people are different: I disagree with them. That wouldn't happen otherwise.

Perhaps, or perhaps people are a little smarter than you're giving them credit for. o.O

Also, I thought your point was that the media going against guns would turn people against guns. My point: Not necessarily. Perhaps, yes but don't assume it as a fact or you're generalizing, which you disagree with. lol.

 

[Browny]

Why not just restrict bullets instead of guns? Your gun can't do crap if it ain't loaded.

edit: Browny is either trolling or 12. I can't think of another reason why someone would both say that taking away guns will solve violence and that all Americans are violent idiots.

nope.

im not saying that at all. im saying that gun control will curb mass murder tolls.

guns are an ENABLER to mass murder. put it this way, if someone wants to kill as many people as possible, why dont they bomb a building or hijack a plane? because its ****ING HARD. As oppose to going into a shop and buying a gun no questions asked. if machine guns were buyable, these mass murderers would buy them instead.

if someone wants to kill others, you cant stop them. but if dont let them have heavy weapons or explosives, theyll get the next best thing. if you remove the next best thing and all that is left is knifes, what are they gonna do.

but go on, give them high power weapons. thats totally going to stop them, while bombs are illegal yet usually kill less.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Perhaps, or perhaps people are a little smarter than you're giving them credit for. o.O

I'm saying they're smarter than they're giving them credit for, they're saying that people are fearful idiots that are easily swayed by the news. You keep pinning their actions on me, almost as if you really don't get anything about what happened and just want to go after me because they are.

Also, I thought your point was that the media going against guns would turn people against guns. My point: Not necessarily. Perhaps, yes but don't assume it as a fact or you're generalizing, which you disagree with. lol.

I wasn't generalizing anyone. My point was that IF the media had this gigantic impact on people's opinions of guns (which I never said they did, it was only a hypothetical scenario), they would be swayed in their direction because it wouldn't make sense for people to be afraid of guns and then go out and buy them. Really you're just taking the side thing that I said and stretching it in an attempt to call me a hypocrite, which means you're derailing the thread to crap talk me. So why are you posting if all your posts are doing is killing the thread?

 

[Luco]

I'm saying they're smarter than they're giving them credit for, they're saying that people are fearful idiots that are easily swayed by the news. You keep pinning their actions on me, almost as if you really don't get anything about what happened and just want to go after me because they are.



I wasn't generalizing anyone. My point was that IF the media had this gigantic impact on people's opinions of guns (which I never said they did, it was only a hypothetical scenario), they would be swayed in their direction because it wouldn't make sense for people to be afraid of guns and then go out and buy them. Really you're just taking the side thing that I said and stretching it in an attempt to call me a hypocrite, which means you're derailing the thread to crap talk me. So why are you posting if all your posts are doing is killing the thread?

Why do you assume that any fallacy I see in your argument is a purposeful down-talk of you (because others are doing it? That's a silly motive) with no basis on it that only de-rails the thread? That's ignorant, rude and shouldn't even warrant a response.

Get your facts straight. I'm not trying to down-talk you, i'm not trying to be rude. If you realize that, then and only then will I continue discussing why I said what I did.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Why do you assume that any fallacy I see in your argument is a purposeful down-talk of you (because others are doing it? That's a silly motive) with no basis on it that only de-rails the thread? That's ignorant, rude and shouldn't even warrant a response.

First off, you're not seeing any fallacies, you're just wrong. I was not saying that people are swayed by the media, I was proposing a hypothetical situation in which they were and in said hypothetical scenario I disagreed with his interpretation of the events that would occur. You keep insisting to the contrary, which is wrong. You keep insisting I'm a hypocrite for something I never said, which is wrong. And you keep posting in the thread to call me a hypocrite and not say anything about the actual issue, which is taking focus completely away from the issue, which is derailment.

I will tell you my only point throughout all of this; generalizing people is bad because not everyone is the same. When you generalize, you imply that they are, and unless you can actually prove that they are than you're just stereotyping. Okay? Do you get it?

Get your facts straight. I'm not trying to down-talk you, i'm not trying to be rude. If you realize that, then and only then will I continue discussing why I said what I did.

Tell me exactly what you're trying to say and why you're saying it. Either that or make an on-topic post.

 

[Luco]

Okay but if you're going to go along with their hypothetical situation, which you did, you're still implying that you're making a stereo-type. Do you not agree that you went along with the hypothetical situation? Do you not agree that you actually said what you saw would happen and do you not see how I could see that as generalization? If you don't, then you're being blind-sighted by your own argument, which is never something you should do.

And so you know, you've been furthering this off-topic discussion just as much as I have, so do not play 'holier than thou' because that further downgrades the opponent, something else you should NEVER do.

Saying 'you're not seeing any fallacies, you're just wrong' is incredibly ignorant and rude. Whether you were trying to make that point is irrelevant because you went against your own argument even in a hypothetical situation. Stay true to your argument or you run the risk of people calling you a hypocrite. -_-

That's all I have to say at this stage. If you want to return on topic, i'm happy to do that too. Can we just stop arguing over silly semantics whilst insulting the other?

I see you lurking falcon.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Okay but if you're going to go along with their hypothetical situation, which you did, you're still implying that you're making a stereo-type. Do you not agree that you went along with the hypothetical situation? Do you not agree that you actually said what you saw would happen and do you not see how I could see that as generalization? If you don't, then you're being blind-sighted by your own argument, which is never something you should do.

Here's the thing; hypothetical situations? They're not real. I never implied that it was a real thing that happened, when he constantly did. That's the divide, where I was accepting the hypothetical imaginary not in the real world scenario to point out why I disagreed with his logic, he was actually saying that this was a real thing that happened. Do you not see the difference between reality and imagination?

And so you know, you've been furthering this off-topic discussion just as much as I have, so do not play 'holier than thou' because that further downgrades the opponent, something else you should NEVER do.

You never needed to post. I was responding to you because what you said directly involved me whereas you came in and voluntarily jumped into an off-topic discussion. That's why I'm "holier than thou"; you're starting crap for no reason while I'm defending myself. There's the difference.

Saying 'you're not seeing any fallacies, you're just wrong' is incredibly ignorant and rude. Whether you were trying to make that point is irrelevant because you went against your own argument even in a hypothetical situation. Stay true to your argument or you run the risk of people calling you a hypocrite. -_-

I never made a single generalization. Never did I imply that any group of people were the same. I said that in the event that his generalization that he made was true (which I never said it was), he would be wrong about what would happen. That's all.

That's all I have to say at this stage. If you want to return on topic, i'm happy to do that too. Can we just stop arguing over silly semantics whilst insulting the other?

If you don't respond to me, I won't respond to you. That simple.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Lets not forget that Adam Lanza tried to buy and gun and couldn't (apparently), but was able to get one because his mother owned one for self-defense or hunting or whatever.

That's the problem, people need to secure their guns so that only they have access to it. If she had a number locked case, this wouldn't have happened.

I never saw the point of killing defenseless animals with high tech weaponry for sport anyway. Get a bow and arrow if you are such a tough guy imo.

I agree, although a crossbow could also work.

 

[Luco]

Here's the thing; hypothetical situations? They're not real. I never implied that it was a real thing that happened, when he constantly did. That's the divide, where I was accepting the hypothetical imaginary not in the real world scenario to point out why I disagreed with his logic, he was actually saying that this was a real thing that happened. Do you not see the difference between reality and imagination?



You never needed to post. I was responding to you because what you said directly involved me whereas you came in and voluntarily jumped into an off-topic discussion. That's why I'm "holier than thou"; you're starting crap for no reason while I'm defending myself. There's the difference.



I never made a single generalization. Never did I imply that any group of people were the same. I said that in the event that his generalization that he made was true (which I never said it was), he would be wrong about what would happen. That's all.



If you don't respond to me, I won't respond to you. That simple.

@.@ You don't understand a word i'm saying. I actually don't want to be rude but what do I do when you say this:

almost as if you really don't get anything about what happened and just want to go after me because they are.

Really you're just taking the side thing that I said and stretching it in an attempt to call me a hypocrite, which means you're derailing the thread to crap talk me. So why are you posting if all your posts are doing is killing the thread?

As if you're defending yourself, unless you took this -

Perhaps, or perhaps people are a little smarter than you're giving them credit for. o.O

- to be an insult to your character, which in no way provokes a response like you did.

Whether it's real or not, whether he made it seem real and you didn't, you still made the dang generalization. I see no difference. >.>

 

[Biz_R_0]

If you really don't see the difference between real life and someone's imagination, that's literal insanity. Even then, I never said they were the same, point me to where you think I said it and I'll tell you how I didn't.

 

[Luco]

Again you're mis-interpreting what I said. I never said there's no difference between reality and imagination, I said that if you make a generalization, it doesn't matter whether it applies to something real or imaginative. There's a difference.

Also, I agree with securing guns.

 

[Yodery]

Third party sources.

/thread

 

[Biz_R_0]

Again you're mis-interpreting what I said. I never said there's no difference between reality and imagination, I said that if you make a generalization, it doesn't matter whether it applies to something real or imaginative. There's a difference.

Can we just agree that they're bad?

 

[Luco]

Yeah ok.

 

[Browny]

This will probably get modded/deleted whatever I dont care.

I just needed to rant. For the sake of those children who died in the name of 'freedom'. A blight upon this Earth.

 

[Luco]

You know Browny, I doubt that post would've been infracted or anything. I totally understand how you feel, even if you were making generalizations. Sometimes it really does feel like everyone is like this or like that (as bad as that is ha) and you just have to get it out of your system. I totally respect where you're coming from.

 

[Teran]

Probably because people going insane in relatively peaceful areas is more newsworthy than someone going insane in the ghetto.

I dunno man if you get someone committing a string of murders, where he ***** the individual first then bleaches their bodies, cuts off a lock of their hair, and inscribes symbols and stuff all over the body with a knife, you know you are dealing with a white man.

 

[Evil Eye]

Just lost a really, really, really... really long post dissecting every "hur hur prohibition" and second amendment trumpeting argument with pesky facts and statistics.

Obviously the internet is all about the GOP. God damn it **** my life.

TLDR: More guns = more homicides, take it from people that are smarter than we are and actually know how to research things and evaluate facts before they make up their mind about something.

Stop selling assault rifles to every joe schmuck with a thick wallet and mommy/daddy issues = profit

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

nope.

im not saying that at all. im saying that gun control will curb mass murder tolls.

guns are an ENABLER to mass murder. put it this way, if someone wants to kill as many people as possible, why dont they bomb a building or hijack a plane? because its ****ING HARD. As oppose to going into a shop and buying a gun no questions asked. if machine guns were buyable, these mass murderers would buy them instead.

if someone wants to kill others, you cant stop them. but if dont let them have heavy weapons or explosives, theyll get the next best thing. if you remove the next best thing and all that is left is knifes, what are they gonna do.

but go on, give them high power weapons. thats totally going to stop them, while bombs are illegal yet usually kill less.

Just curious, and sorry if you already addressed this and I missed it in all of the generalization messages but what would gun control actually entail to you?

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

The second amendment one is my favorite. No one bothers to read the first half of the sentence , never mind the fact that it was written in a time when your average male citizen was your "well-regulated militia." The second amendment was written for a very different era. Parroting the part of the sentence that makes your argument seem salient while ignoring the rest of it and its intent is not intelligent.

 

[Evil Eye]

AS SEEN ON TV

Selective readin' of codified laws and statutes: Not just for religious people!

 

[Jam Stunna]

Just lost a really, really, really... really long post dissecting every "hur hur prohibition" and second amendment trumpeting argument with pesky facts and statistics.

Obviously the internet is all about the GOP. God damn it **** my life.

TLDR: More guns = more homicides, take it from people that are smarter than we are and actually know how to research things and evaluate facts before they make up their mind about something.

Stop selling assault rifles to every joe schmuck with a thick wallet and mommy/daddy issues = profit

If you ever find the courage to re-write that post, I'd love to read it!

The second amendment one is my favorite. No one bothers to read the first half of the sentence , never mind the fact that it was written in a time when your average male citizen was your "well-regulated militia." The second amendment was written for a very different era. Parroting the part of the sentence that makes your argument seem salient while ignoring the rest of it and its intent is not intelligent.

This, so much. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to own a gun as personal property at all.