Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[ch33zw1z]

still got $5 for a gofundme to fight smoking

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nope you haven't tried to be reasonable at all in this entire thread. All you've done is try to duhvert.

So nope you haven't thought about shit. Start a smoking thread if you're really so concerned.

I'm not so concerned. And neither are you. Unless it is about guns,then you suddenly are. And that's my point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ted Cruz is a turd and his obvious attempt at getting votes and trying t appeal to certain people is as see through as the average anti 2A'ers partisan crusade against the 2A.

Ted Cruz is practically the poster boy for the NRA, America's greatest gun advocacy voice. They love him to pieces-

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-NRA-think-of-Ted-Cruz-and-why

I mean, how can anybody be truly free or safe w/o the ability to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Cruz just became his new hero.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ted Cruz is practically the poster boy for the NRA, America's greatest gun advocacy voice. They love him to pieces-

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-NRA-think-of-Ted-Cruz-and-why

I mean, how can anybody be truly free or safe w/o the ability to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?

Do people murdered in a longer period of time matter to you, Captain Savelives?

 

[Jhhnn]

Do people murdered in a longer period of time matter to you, Captain Savelives?

Could you be a little more obtuse, please?

 

[JSt0rm]

Do people murdered in a longer period of time matter to you, Captain Savelives?

I bet if you were there you wouldnt be talking like this. I bet if your kids were killed by some random shit head you wouldnt talk like this.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not so concerned. And neither are you. Unless it is about guns,then you suddenly are. And that's my point.

You don't know a thing about what I am concerned about. But thanks for admitting you've just been trolling.

 

[pmv]

Seriously, that's your reply? Take a look in the mirror bud. I'm asking for complete stats, you have nothing so you throw a tantrum. I am asking for you to calculate or at least take a look at how many life-hours have been saved by guns, you continue to ignore this. Pathetic. Whatever dude.

I've decided I don't want to spoil my pristine 'ignore' list after managing so long without a single entry in it.

So, instead...

Can I get this straight? You're asking _me_ for 'complete stats'? _You_ base your argument on fundamentally flawed numbers, I point out the weakness, and even, in the interests of maintaining a rational debate, charitably go out of my way to do the work you were too lazy to do and give you a first approximation, based on easily verifiable data, to the real figures, to make clear you have no case.

And you then have the sheer chutzpah to righteously demand 'complete stats' - the very stats you should have supplied if you want to make your argument work in the first place!

Are you actually prepared to make any effort whatosever to construct an argument? You seem to think it's everybody else's job to make your case for you. It's _your_ argument, either provide the complete stats yourself or shut up and concede you have nothing to say.

As for your absurd comment about 'life of a 50 year old' - maybe you didn't notice, but we are talking about public health and social policy and average outcomes over populations, not a question about an individual. This is what public policy does all the time - considers how many years of life are involved. Are you seriously telling me that faced with an epidemic of a disease that would reduce your life expectancy by 10 years on average, and one that would reduce it by 40 years, you'd have no opinion as to which the state should prioritise?

But then you know that, but you aren't interested in anything more than striking postures, are you? You show no sign at all of being prepared to think or debate rationally, you just have your emotional attachment to guns and throw any nonsense you can think of in order to stave off your anxiety that someone might take them away.

I'll ask one more time - do you have any statistics that support your endlessly repeated (but currently unsupported) claim that passive smoking is a more serious public health issue than gun violence? Yes or no? If yes, please present them.

 

[pmv]

I openly and honestly compared numbers and tried to find a reasonable answer, you have nothing but a weak attempt at a personal attack.

And what do you have? Nothing but the same already-debunked whataboutery repeated ad nasueum. And now you directly admit that you don't actually care about any of these diversionary arguments you keep throwing out there!

 

[Younigue]

What is sad is that you ignored my posts. I have never once personally attacked you. I just posted things you don't want to see. You are an example of why Trump won. You'd rather just hear what makes you feel good vs. cold hard logic and reality.

Facts and Reality, you know nothing of these things.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I bet if you were there you wouldnt be talking like this. I bet if your kids were killed by some random shit head you wouldnt talk like this.

Aren't you kind of admitting that you'd prefer policy to be dictated based on emotional reasoning, rather than logical reasoning?

 

[JSt0rm]

Aren't you kind of admitting that you'd prefer policy to be dictated based on emotional reasoning, rather than logical reasoning?

Its completely logical. I cant help that some are so obtuse that they need to be directly affected to see it. As an example that one musician who had an epiphany as full auto hot lead flew around him. Shameful he didnt care about 20 6 year olds being gunned down.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Its completely logical. I cant help that some are so obtuse that they need to be directly affected to see it. As an example that one musician who had an epiphany as full auto hot lead flew around him. Shameful he didnt care about 20 6 year olds being gunned down.

What I meant was, you're stating that his stance would be changed to the 'correct' viewpoint, if he was emotionally affected by the event. That's a dangerous road to walk down, as it leads to reactionary legislation.

 

[Capt Caveman]

New law in HI to fight second hand smoke - http://www.wilx.com/content/news/Smoking-in-car-with-kids-illegal-in-Hawaii-city-452733373.html

 

[JSt0rm]

What I meant was, you're stating that his stance would be changed to the 'correct' viewpoint, if he was emotionally affected by the event. That's a dangerous road to walk down, as it leads to reactionary legislation.

Hey thats his flaw not mine.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Hey thats his flaw not mine.

It's a flaw to not introduce emotion into a logical argument? Or it's a flaw that he'd be enacting reactionary legislation? You aren't making sense.

 

[brycejones]

New law in HI to fight second hand smoke - http://www.wilx.com/content/news/Smoking-in-car-with-kids-illegal-in-Hawaii-city-452733373.html

Not enough....can't talk about guns until smoking is completely eradicated and all potential smoking deaths have occurred. Only then will we be able to talk about controlling guns. Oops, scratch that. We'll have to wait until no one dies of heart disease or from transportation related accidents.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's a flaw to not introduce emotion into a logical argument? Or it's a flaw that he'd be enacting reactionary legislation? You aren't making sense.

The logical thing to do is to limit guns. The emotional ones think guns make them safe when they statistically dont. The emotional ones also dont change their stance until they themselves are attacked.

 

[JSt0rm]

Gun owners are pussies. Id much rather they accept the fact that guns make them less safe and move into the "but I enjoy them phase". I dont see motorcyclists claiming they are safer on a motorcycle.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The logical thing to do is to limit guns. The emotional ones think guns make them safe when they statistically dont. The emotional ones also dont change their stance until they themselves are attacked.

The logical thing to do is not limit rights. The emotional ones think removing guns keeps them safe from a statistically insignificant event. The emotional ones also don't change their stance even when presented with overwhelming levels of evidence.

I like this dance, let's continue.

 

[JSt0rm]

The logical thing to do is not limit rights. The emotional ones think removing guns keeps them safe from a statistically insignificant event.

See thats where you are wrong. Having a gun in your home makes you less safe and its not insignificant. We are talking about more then mass shootings. Everything from suicide to accidental discharges.

You have in your brain a certain form of truthiness. You think "I am holding this thing and I feel safe when I do it"

Thats emotional. You "feel" safe. understand? Logical would be looking at all of the real statistics.

The emotional ones also don't change their stance even when presented with overwhelming levels of evidence.

I like this dance, let's continue.

Wait I thought you said the emotional ones do change their stance?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

See thats where you are wrong. Having a gun in your home makes you less safe and its not insignificant. We are talking about more then mass shootings. Everything from suicide to accidental discharges.

You have in your brain a certain form of truthiness. You think "I am holding this thing and I feel safe when I do it"

Thats emotional. You "feel" safe. understand? Logical would be looking at all of the real statistics.



Wait I thought you said the emotional ones do change their stance?

Eh? I never said anything about safeness, safety of guns in the home, on the person, etc. I don't feel safer with a gun, in fact, if I CC'd I'd probably feel on edge all the damned time.

And no, once an emotional stance is committed, it's basically never changed. When emotion enters the equation, they commit to an emotional stance and stick with that henceforth.

 

[JSt0rm]

Eh? I never said anything about safeness, safety of guns in the home, on the person, etc. I don't feel safer with a gun, in fact, if I CC'd I'd probably feel on edge all the damned time.

And no, once an emotional stance is committed, it's basically never changed. When emotion enters the equation, they commit to an emotional stance and stick with that henceforth.

gun owners own guns because its an emotional reaction... I feel fear therfore I will solve that fear by having a gun. I now "feel" safe. Im not safe. Infact I have a higher risk of death but as long as I feel safe I'm ok.

Understand the flawed sick minds of most gunowners?

 

[JSt0rm]

now people who own guns for marksmanship or quickdraw competitions are a different thing.