active shooter in Aurora IL

[Victorian Gray]

You'll notice the news is not making a big deal about his race.

Gary is black.

And in this particular incident this is important because?

 

[JSt0rm]

And in this particular incident this is important because?

Because white people

 

[brycejones]

You'll notice the news is not making a big deal about his race.

Gary is black.

Your point in regards to this case? Doesn’t seem to be any racial component at this time to comment on.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Friend, you have a point!

Let's settle this. Guns shall be banned everywhere we are not allowed to smoke.
Does that satisfy you?

No, my point is that some liberties carry risk. If anti-2A'ers aren't against the bigger killer, then they are hypocrites, and I never see threads about smoking here.

 

[Jaskalas]

No, my point is that some liberties carry risk. If anti-2A'ers aren't against the bigger killer, then they are hypocrites, and I never see threads about smoking here.

Many folks support smoking bans in places it affects others.

Where as it is more divisive when people support the right to potentially drill holes into you with bullets. Can't move away from or out run that. And people's fear of guns is largely only relieved by having guns, being trapped in a false dilemma. Personally being armed _could_ make you somewhat safer in certain scenarios. But the public at large being armed is simply going to murder you at much faster rate.

 

[Vic]

No, my point is that some liberties carry risk. If anti-2A'ers aren't against the bigger killer, then they are hypocrites, and I never see threads about smoking here.

They're obviously against 'the bigger killer.' They're the ones who have been fighting against smoking and the tobacco companies for decades. The hypocrite here BTW is the person who condemns others for not doing enough that they do nothing about.
Also, there used to be thread after thread here about secondhand smoke, but now that smoking has been banned in almost every indoor public place in America, the issue is now effectively settled. Thus, no more threads. Once again, you're not only on the wrong of history, history has already passed you by.
However, many people still smoke, and smoking in private indoor spaces cannot be regulated, and lung cancer can take many years, sometimes decades, to develop, so the deaths will continue for a while, unfortunately, until the effects of the changes are felt.

 

[shortylickens]

Your point in regards to this case? Doesn’t seem to be any racial component at this time to comment on.

Because he's black.


Every time a white guy does it the media is keen to point out his race IMMEDIATELY. As a white guy is makes me wonder WTF.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Many folks support smoking bans in places it affects others.

Where as it is more divisive when people support the right to potentially drill holes into you with bullets. Can't move away from or out run that. And people's fear of guns is largely only relieved by having guns, being trapped in a false dilemma. Personally being armed _could_ make you somewhat safer in certain scenarios. But the public at large being armed is simply going to murder you at much faster rate.

Slow is immune to facts. The US has taken extensive measures to reduce smoking.

https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/reports-resources/sotc/tobacco-timeline.html

It's was only recently that the FDA was given oversight, thanks Obama.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg...U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration?wprov=sfla1

I applaud your efforts in replying to him, but it's been repeatedly shown to him how smoking has been declining consistently in the US, while increasing in other parts of the world, laregly due to efforts by our government and citizens

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0118-smoking-rates-declining.html

https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/surveillance/reportontrendstobaccosmoking/en/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/how-big-tobacco-has-survived-death-and-taxes

Gun deaths on the rise? Well, that's freedom.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017

We better arm teachers, too

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mise-gun-violence-school-shooting-report-2018

 

[Indus]

You'll notice the news is not making a big deal about his race.

Gary is black.

I don't think it was a racially motivated shooting.

I mean the guy worked there for 15 years.. gets fired and takes it out on HR and whoever is next.

 

[brycejones]

Because he's black.


Every time a white guy does it the media is keen to point out his race IMMEDIATELY. As a white guy is makes me wonder WTF.

Clearly context matters in reporting. White guy shoots up a bible study in a black church probably going to hear about race. Dude shoots his coworkers after getting fired unless additional information comes out you are not going to hear about race. What you should do if you really feel like there is some kind of double standard is compare the reporting on other workplace shootings as the most appropriate context.

 

[Paratus]

Slow seriously makes me wanna ask the admins for a Roll Eyes reaction emoji.

Here you go!

Rolleyes
https://i.imgur.com/oGUwQ4Y.gif

 

[TheVrolok]

They're obviously against 'the bigger killer.' They're the ones who have been fighting against smoking and the tobacco companies for decades. The hypocrite here BTW is the person who condemns others for not doing enough that they do nothing about.
Also, there used to be thread after thread here about secondhand smoke, but now that smoking has been banned in almost every indoor public place in America, the issue is now effectively settled. Thus, no more threads. Once again, you're not only on the wrong of history, history has already passed you by.
However, many people still smoke, and smoking in private indoor spaces cannot be regulated, and lung cancer can take many years, sometimes decades, to develop, so the deaths will continue for a while, unfortunately, until the effects of the changes are felt.

Don't bother. He doesn't think there have been significant anti tobacco efforts in this country. He suggests that since politicians aren't stumping for tobacco as they do for gun control, that second hand smoke is ignored. Obviously he fails to consider the history of the "anti tobacco" movement in this country, well, because he's an intellectually dishonest (and/or paid) troll. I mean every thread he shows up in is a carbon copy of the others. He's been making the exact same posts for at least a year now, and yet, people still engage him.

 

[zinfamous]

Today alone over 100 innocent people will die as victims of second hand smoke..

no they fucking won't.

 

[Jaskalas]

no they fucking won't.

You are correct. The number is actually 112 / day.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Slow is immune to facts. The US has taken extensive measures to reduce smoking.

https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/tobacco/reports-resources/sotc/tobacco-timeline.html

It's was only recently that the FDA was given oversight, thanks Obama.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reg...U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration?wprov=sfla1

I applaud your efforts in replying to him, but it's been repeatedly shown to him how smoking has been declining consistently in the US, while increasing in other parts of the world, laregly due to efforts by our government and citizens

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0118-smoking-rates-declining.html

https://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/surveillance/reportontrendstobaccosmoking/en/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/how-big-tobacco-has-survived-death-and-taxes

Gun deaths on the rise? Well, that's freedom.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017

We better arm teachers, too

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mise-gun-violence-school-shooting-report-2018

Yet smoking kills well over a magnitude more than guns with the restrictions put in place. Guns have had many restrictions over the years. We're willing to live with smoking deaths without further political discussion. Yet for the left it is almost a must to be anti-2A, for further restrictions.

Here is a huge list of restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Again, both have restrictions, both are individual liberties that have the ability to cause harm to society. The left doesn't give a flying fuck about the bigger killers, but when it comes to guns they go full retard. You're simply not intellectually consistent, and it shows that this is a partisan and emotion driven agenda, not logically driven.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Yet smoking kills well over a magnitude more than guns with the restrictions put in place. Guns have had many restrictions over the years. We're willing to live with smoking deaths without further political discussion. Yet for the left it is almost a must to be anti-2A, for further restrictions.

Here is a huge list of restrictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Again, both have restrictions, both are individual liberties that have the ability to cause harm to society. The left doesn't give a flying fuck about the bigger killers, but when it comes to guns they go full retard. You're simply not intellectually consistent, and it shows that this is a partisan and emotion driven agenda, not logically driven.

Projection is strong. What your end argument becomes is since we've curtailed smoking related deaths through extensive regulations, that we can do the same for weapons.

You're very concerned about the left not worrying about smoking deaths, which is obviously false. The irony is that you dont actually care about it. It's acceptable losses, just like the gun deaths. *Shrug* nothing can be done.

Youre mislead into thinking "the left" is anti-2a. I'm what you consider left, and I'm not anti-2a, I'm also not a gun nutter. I'm open to sensible restrictions on public safety issues. You're immune to facts.

Here's some more facts.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

[Jaskalas]

The left doesn't give a flying fuck about the bigger killers, but when it comes to guns they go full retard.

I do not smoke. I'll tell everyone I know not to smoke. I endorse smoking bans in public.
Do you endorse a gun ban in public? No more right to carry?

We give a flying fuck, do you?

 

[Vic]

Don't bother. He doesn't think there have been significant anti tobacco efforts in this country. He suggests that since politicians aren't stumping for tobacco as they do for gun control, that second hand smoke is ignored. Obviously he fails to consider the history of the "anti tobacco" movement in this country, well, because he's an intellectually dishonest (and/or paid) troll. I mean every thread he shows up in is a carbon copy of the others. He's been making the exact same posts for at least a year now, and yet, people still engage him.

I have to admit that it's an astonishingly clever dishonest narrative. Accuse people who have already done as much as politically possible of not doing anything, while he and his ilk were the ones who always stood against their progress towards tobacco reform. By ignoring the past (when people smoked everywhere, inside offices, stores, restaurants, etc and liberals were the ones who changed that) he's simultaneously robbing liberals of their prior victories wrt tobacco reform while fighting current and similar liberal efforts at gun reform.

Goebbels would be proud.

 

[zinfamous]

I have to admit that it's an astonishingly clever dishonest narrative. Accuse people who have already done as much as politically possible of not doing anything, while he and his ilk were the ones who always stood against their progress towards tobacco reform. By ignoring the past (when people smoked everywhere, inside offices, stores, restaurants, etc and liberals were the ones who changed that) he's simultaneously robbing liberals of their prior victories wrt tobacco reform while fighting current and similar liberal efforts at gun reform.

Goebbels would be proud.

He's also the same type that fought against removing lead from gasoline, paint, manufacturing processes, etc. because...it was the same fake science then. The only deniers, interestingly, are always canned industry reports, whose cash is largely spent on media campaigns that convince the retards that "these crazy scientists that deny the industry reports are somehow in it for the money!" ...which is goddamn hilarious when you stop for 6 seconds and think about this logic.

 

[TheVrolok]

I have to admit that it's an astonishingly clever dishonest narrative. Accuse people who have already done as much as politically possible of not doing anything, while he and his ilk were the ones who always stood against their progress towards tobacco reform. By ignoring the past (when people smoked everywhere, inside offices, stores, restaurants, etc and liberals were the ones who changed that) he's simultaneously robbing liberals of their prior victories wrt tobacco reform while fighting current and similar liberal efforts at gun reform.

Goebbels would be proud.

Yep. He could teach at a gaslighting school.