• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florida High School Shooting

Page 113 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
You really, really don't understand that word. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

Lol cant stop wont stop eh?

This post is you clearly disagreeing over a technicality.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/florida-high-school-shooting.2537399/page-112#post-39320048

"'but I like it' is not the reason why gay marriage is legal. Gay marriage is legal because 'but I don't like it' wasn't a good enough reason to ban it.

Thanks for so clearly proving my point, lol."

So when you disagree with what he because you think its technically wrong that is not you being a pedant. When I then disagree with your technical analysis, I'm the pedant. Okay guy.
 
realibrad said:
Lol cant stop wont stop eh?

This post is you clearly disagreeing over a technicality.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/florida-high-school-shooting.2537399/page-112#post-39320048

"'but I like it' is not the reason why gay marriage is legal. Gay marriage is legal because 'but I don't like it' wasn't a good enough reason to ban it.

Thanks for so clearly proving my point, lol."

So when you disagree with what he because you think its technically wrong that is not you being a pedant. When I then disagree with your technical analysis, I'm the pedant. Okay guy.
Click to expand...

You really, really, really don't understand that word. lol. His post was not wrong on a technicality, he stated literally the 180 opposite of what is true and that was foundational to his point. You are functionally defined by your pedantry though, yes, as you argue points that are irrelevant to the larger point. Apparently someone pointing out that you're a pedant really bothers you but instead of trying to be better you just keep whining about it. You need to get better at accepting criticism.
 
realibrad said:
I like guns and banning them is not the most effective way of reducing mass murder. Further, some adult things are dangerous and sometimes bad people will do bad things so lets not ban something just for that reason.

Well, that is if you want to be accurate.
Click to expand...
Except for all the places that have banned them and reduced mass murder?
 
jackstar7 said:
Except for all the places that have banned them and reduced mass murder?
Click to expand...

He will argue that decreasing income inequality is a more effective way to reduce mass murder so basically instead of gun control we could create a more egalitarian society.

I imagine you will find this argument very dumb but he will be unable to figure out why and will earnestly keep making it.
 
fskimospy said:
You really, really, really don't understand that word. lol. His post was not wrong on a technicality, he stated literally the 180 opposite of what is true and that was foundational to his point. You are functionally defined by your pedantry though, yes, as you argue points that are irrelevant to the larger point. Apparently someone pointing out that you're a pedant really bothers you but instead of trying to be better you just keep whining about it. You need to get better at accepting criticism.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the need to have power over me? Why are you concerned about how I feel about being called something that you keep calling me?

No, I'm not bothered beyond disagreeing.

He said that enjoying something is enough to make it legal. You disagreed with that because in terms of gay marriage, you think its legal because there was not a good enough reason to keep it illegal. That is a silly pedantic argument because what is needed is both a desire to do something to make people do it and no good argument as to why it should not. Both are clearly needed as we only make some things illegal after we see people wanting to do the new things.

For example, magnetic balls were only banned after they were created because before nobody wanted them. Once they did there was a side effect and that was used as an argument to ban them. But, if nobody ever wanted them there would be nobody with them and no side effect so no reason to ban them.

If you think that is pedantic then perhaps you just find a few sentences too hard to follow.
 
realibrad said:
Do you feel the need to have power over me? Why are you concerned about how I feel about being called something that you keep calling me?

No, I'm not bothered beyond disagreeing.

He said that enjoying something is enough to make it legal. You disagreed with that because in terms of gay marriage, you think its legal because there was not a good enough reason to keep it illegal. That is a silly pedantic argument because what is needed is both a desire to do something to make people do it and no good argument as to why it should not. Both are clearly needed as we only make some things illegal after we see people wanting to do the new things.

For example, magnetic balls were only banned after they were created because before nobody wanted them. Once they did there was a side effect and that was used as an argument to ban them. But, if nobody ever wanted them there would be nobody with them and no side effect so no reason to ban them.

If you think that is pedantic then perhaps you just find a few sentences too hard to follow.
Click to expand...

You do not understand that word. lol. I am simply pointing out that you have repeatedly brought up how you are called pedantic unprompted, which indicates you are concerned about it.

Gotta get better at taking criticism, bro.
 
jackstar7 said:
Except for all the places that have banned them and reduced mass murder?
Click to expand...

Because there is no way for those "places" to do anything beyond banning guns. At a national level, broader things can be done. We are talking about how to solve this beyond "places" with something done at a much higher level.

I see no reason to not ban guns at "places". I also don't see why banning guns should be the main focus. I also don't think it should not be part of what is done.

That said, I was establishing the argument of the group referenced.
 
brandonbull said:
Looks like outside of a felony convictions, involuntary commitment, or age, they can't really seize or bar someone from owning a firearm in FL. I'll support expanded laws to remove firearms from people.
Click to expand...
Oregon just became the first state to expand laws to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals. Many other states to follow.
 
Hopefully states do what the federal government won't, take military weapons out of the hands of civilians and put them where they should go... in the hands of the military and law enforcement. Hand guns, bolt action rifles, and shotguns. That's a good middle ground.
 
realibrad said:
Then explain where it breaks down. Why would anyone change a law that nobody cares about?



Except only a few disagree with me.
Click to expand...
I think you're an idiot. I haven't put you on ignore yet but I suspect I will soon. You're tedious in everything you say.
 
Subyman said:
Hopefully states do what the federal government won't, take military weapons out of the hands of civilians and put them where they should go... in the hands of the military and law enforcement. Hand guns, bolt action rifles, and shotguns. That's a good middle ground.
Click to expand...

If its going to be done at the state level, it needs to have key underlying things. If the state next door allows for x gun, then many will simply go next door to get their guns. We will have to wait and see.
 
Why does slingin' don, pence keep mentioning the Pollacks? I don't remember him naming any other family. This is the "I'm pissed" guy at the first meeting. I find it odd that pence even mentioned her. Was there anything she did that I missed?
 
Rick Scott just announced he wants to sign legislation in the next two weeks that will:

1) restrict gun sales to 21+ with exceptions for military/Leo
2) prohibit mental ill from buying guns
3) fund law enforcement officers in schools

That first thing is a gigantic change from somebody like him. I think the tide on this issue has actually shifted.

Also will ban purchase or sale of bump stocks.

The NRA is going to have a stroke.
 
fskimospy said:
'but I like it' is not the reason why gay marriage is legal. Gay marriage is legal because 'but I don't like it' wasn't a good enough reason to ban it.

Thanks for so clearly proving my point, lol.
Click to expand...

That "I don't like it" applies to bans on guns too.
 
jpeyton said:
Oregon just became the first state to expand laws to remove firearms from the possession of dangerous individuals. Many other states to follow.
Click to expand...

Because the worried calls and FBI tips turned out to be true in this one instance, now we are broadly expanding the ability to remove the 2A right of certain individuals? This is definitely a pretty dangerous precedent.

Whatever is considered a Credible threat needs to be looked at very carefully. If they are not going to be jailed for being "dangerous" i see no reason to ONLY confiscate their 2A right.

Can you honestly tell me there is an instance where somebody is too dangerous to be allowed in society with a gun, but not dangerous enough to not be in prison?
 
Like others, I haven't kept up with this thread, but the pile of shit we refer to as the president just again advocated for teachers to have guns, as a teacher would have "shot the hell" out of the gunman.
 
Subyman said:
Hopefully states do what the federal government won't, take military weapons out of the hands of civilians and put them where they should go... in the hands of the military and law enforcement. Hand guns, bolt action rifles, and shotguns. That's a good middle ground.
Click to expand...
I'd argue they shouldn't be in the hands of most law enforcement either. And handguns need to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top