Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[Doppel]

Karmy, do yourself a favor and go to the wiki page for Reductio_ad_Hitlerum, realize what you have done, and then go to your bedroom until supper time.

 

[Nebor]

that's utterly monstrous.

No, it's not. Because gun control won't stop school shootings. You could walk into your nearest kindergarden with a chainsaw today and do more damage than that nut in Newton did, because 1) the schools are all still wide open and unsecured 2) you don't have to reload and 3) a chainsaw is far more lethal than a gun.

I think the problem is that the people who are unfamiliar\uncomfortable with violence are trying to solve a problem that can only be solved with more violence. You're clearly a victim oriented person, as you feel deeply for the victims, and you're tired of patching them up. Unfortunately, the only way to stop violence is with recipricol violence, which you don't have the stomach for. You see the story and weep for the kids, I see the story and think of how we can identify and stop other people like him before they act in the future. You don't try to disarm the whole world, you find the killers and put them down.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I see lots of talk about McVeigh, and lots of personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

What I don't see are the supposed parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA.

So, OP, pretend I'm real stupid-like and tell me what they are?

 

[Jaskalas]

You don't try to disarm the whole world, you find the killers and put them down.

Amen.

Protect the kids the same way you protect a Judge. Why are they worth more than our children?

 

[micrometers]

No, it's not. Because gun control won't stop school shootings. You could walk into your nearest kindergarden with a chainsaw today and do more damage than that nut in Newton did, because 1) the schools are all still wide open and unsecured 2) you don't have to reload and 3) a chainsaw is far more lethal than a gun.

I think the problem is that the people who are unfamiliar\uncomfortable with violence are trying to solve a problem that can only be solved with more violence. You're clearly a victim oriented person, as you feel deeply for the victims, and you're tired of patching them up. Unfortunately, the only way to stop violence is with recipricol violence, which you don't have the stomach for. You see the story and weep for the kids, I see the story and think of how we can identify and stop other people like him before they act in the future. You don't try to disarm the whole world, you find the killers and put them down.

Untrue. Again, you can run from melee weapons. Guns have a far longer reach, preventing fleeing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Untrue. Again, you can run from melee weapons. Guns have a far longer reach, preventing fleeing.

Run? It's a classroom. Killer enters the door, blocks the door. Everyone dies.

 

[micrometers]

I see lots of talk about McVeigh, and lots of personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

What I don't see are the supposed parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA.

So, OP, pretend I'm real stupid-like and tell me what they are?

Generally they derive from the same culture and the same starting point which is about "2nd amendment solutions" against elected governments. Much of the logic is the same, such as McVeigh saying that the deaths he inflicted were insignificant in the big picture, while the NRA does argue that massacres do not justify gun restrictions because they'd imagine some other way the massacre would be carried out (despite over and over gun massacres occurring while like arson is not.

 

[micrometers]

Amen.

Protect the kids the same way you protect a Judge. Why are they worth more than our children?

Both. I do think armed security can be a good measure at schools. But as many people have pointed out, a guy with a handgun will be outgunned by a guy with an AR15.

So make sure that the guy with an AR15 doesn't have an AR15.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You need to get a better straight edge and quit using crayons as they get bigger as you draw your lines.

 

[Doppel]

Generally they derive from the same culture and the same starting point which is about "2nd amendment solutions" against elected governments. Much of the logic is the same, such as McVeigh saying that the deaths he inflicted were insignificant in the big picture, while the NRA does argue that massacres do not justify gun restrictions because they'd imagine some other way the massacre would be carried out (despite over and over gun massacres occurring while like arson is not.

Reductio ad hitlerum

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Generally they derive from the same culture and the same starting point which is about "2nd amendment solutions" against elected governments. Much of the logic is the same, such as McVeigh saying that the deaths he inflicted were insignificant in the big picture, while the NRA does argue that massacres do not justify gun restrictions because they'd imagine some other way the massacre would be carried out (despite over and over gun massacres occurring while like arson is not.

Thanks for the response. I will concede the following similarities:

1. A resentment of government.
2. Immersion in the "gun culture".
3. Strong support for second amendment rights.
4. The claim that the number of people he killed was insignificant.
5. A certain degree of callousness.

Now, let's look at two important differences.

First and most obviously, McVeigh was a murderer. The NRA does not go around blowing up buildings, and they don't condone murder. In fact, they run gun safety programs and so forth.

Second, McVeigh didn't care about the number of people he killed. This makes the character of his claim of "insignificance" rather different than those of pro-gun people after Newtown.

The NRA and gun rights supporters are not saying that the deaths don't matter, only that they should be put in context before proposing legislation that restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens and may not even be effective. McVeigh was saying that the deaths truly didn't matter.

Your entire argument is an association fallacy, meant to castigate one group over having a belief in common with another. It's the equivalent of this:

1. The Unabomber was a terrorist.
2. The Unabomber believed strongly in free speech.
3. The ACLU believes strongly in free speech.
4. Therefore, the ACLU is like the Unabomber.

 

[stormkroe]

Reductio ad hitlerum

I think that's also the spell harry potter uses to shrink dictators... Coincidence or conspiracy?!??!

Also, posting in another sweet trollarmy trollitics thread.

 

[Nebor]

Untrue. Again, you can run from melee weapons. Guns have a far longer reach, preventing fleeing.

Where are they going to run in a classroom? You walk in the door with a chainsaw\baseball bat\samurai sword and start killing. You're faster, stronger, smarter and you have the element of surprise.

 

[ivwshane]

I get karmys point.

We had multiple tragic shootings and instead of figuring out how to minimize them from happening again we marginalize the deaths by saying how more people die from some other act. And we justify the marginalization by saying how our 2nd amendment is more import than people dying.

This apparently is the type of thinking mcveigh had.

To give you an example of how unique this thinking is when it comes to guns consider this:

When an airline crashes (which not only is very unlikely but it also kills less people per year than guns), we investigate and if necessary take immediate action, such as grounding all similar planes. In some instances more drastic measures are taken and new rules and regulations are created.

When a tragedy happens because of a gun nothing happens, not even a rational discussion.


The greatest threat to a democratic government isn't a gun (that's quite the opposite actually), the greatest threat is an educated voter. An uneducated voter thinks, "Ive got my gun I'll be able to fight tyranny when it comes" meanwhile a tyrannical government operates behind closed doors, tyranny already came. Now the educated voter says, "I see what you are doing, who you are connected to and what they are doing, you guys are out", tyranny doesn't have a chance.

 

[WackyDan]

I see lots of talk about McVeigh, and lots of personal attacks and accusations of trolling.

What I don't see are the supposed parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA.

So, OP, pretend I'm real stupid-like and tell me what they are?

So let me get this straight. YOU are asking the OP to go back and amend or clarify his post - just like was suggested YOU do in your own post yesterday which caused you to have the mods to close the thread and you proceeded to take your ball and go home?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In other news, Timothy McVeigh killed 150+ people without a gun. We need to ban breathable air, all motor vehicles, lighters, fertilizer, can's that can store fertilizer, gasoline/oil for motor vehicles, engines for motor vehicles.

If any of those items were eliminated, Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have been able to kill all of those people!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So let me get this straight.

You didn't. There's a difference between asking someone to clarify claimed parallels between two things and demanding that someone go through a list of 24 items and analyze each according to several categories.

I gave a lengthy and on-topic response to the OP above. Why don't you give that a try sometime?

 

[WackyDan]

When a tragedy happens because of a gun nothing happens, not even a rational discussion.

When an airline crashes (which not only is very unlikely but it also kills less people per year than guns), we investigate and if necessary take immediate action, such as grounding all similar planes. In some instances more drastic measures are taken and new rules and regulations are created.

When a tragedy happens because of a gun nothing happens, not even a rational discussion.

Let me point something out and I'm curious as to if you agree or not. It's fine if you don't.

When an airplane crashes it may be mechanical, weather, or human error - just to name a few. The NTSB may spend several months or even longer than a year to determine exactly what went wrong. The findings tend to be factual, accurate and void of human emotion linked to causation. The fix might be mechanical, which may cause amended maintenance schedules, replacement of parts or grounding. The fault might have been human error in which case the experience, amount of rest the pilot had, or the mistake that took a split second to make all be be evaluated and procedures implemented to avoid the same on another flight.

This actually sounds like something we should be doing in the gun debate. You are right there. Problem is that it is a political issue - airline safety is not *for the most part. The push back from gun owners is tied to the emotionally laden press for new controls based on erroneous facts or facts that are cherry picked and massaged from the opposing side - gun control. The gun control crowd wants any and all legislation passed as long as it is anti-gun - they don't care. What we need is an NTSB type investigation that is not poluted by politics, by the administration or by lobby groups. Just the facts and recommendations... Not some knee jerk response.

So yes, maybe nothing happens when there is a tragedy due to a gun, but as a political issue versus aircraft safety and procedures then you shouldn't be surprised. If the anti gun crowd would accept compromise themselves, perhaps we'd get somewhere on the issue.

 

[sigurros81]

Time to sit down with my lawn chair, watching the loony lefts and the conservative dumbasses going full retard on each other makes for great forum reading.

 

[WackyDan]

You didn't. There's a difference between asking someone to clarify claimed parallels between two things and demanding that someone go through a list of 24 items and analyze each according to several categories.

I gave a lengthy and on-topic response to the OP above. Why don't you give that a try sometime?

I did yesterday and the OP was either too lazy, too absolute in their opinion to play ball so they had the mods close the thread when too many forum members pointed out something he couldn't agree with or let go. Abuse of the mods in my opinion. You make a post you should be open to living with it instead of pussying out and running away from it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I did yesterday and the OP was either too lazy, too absolute in their opinion to play ball so they had the mods close the thread when too many forum members pointed out something he couldn't agree with or let go. Abuse of the mods in my opinion. You make a post you should be open to living with it instead of pussying out and running away from it.

It's my understanding that anyone can ask for their own thread to be closed at any time, for any reason. I asked for mine to be closed because I was utterly pissed off at the complete lack of rationality of several posters, and I had already spent too many hours dealing with it.

And don't push me or I'll post here how I REALLY feel about how you and a couple of others acted in that thread yesterday.

 

[sigurros81]

It's my understanding that anyone can ask for their own thread to be closed at any time, for any reason. I asked for mine to be closed because I was utterly pissed off at the complete lack of rationality of several posters, and I had already spent too many hours dealing with it.

And don't push me or I'll post here how I REALLY feel about how you and a couple of others acted in that thread yesterday.

I didn't read your thread but sounded like you got too but hurt and got the thread closed?

 

[ivwshane]

Let me point something out and I'm curious as to if you agree or not. It's fine if you don't.

When an airplane crashes it may be mechanical, weather, or human error - just to name a few. The NTSB may spend several months or even longer than a year to determine exactly what went wrong. The findings tend to be factual, accurate and void of human emotion linked to causation. The fix might be mechanical, which may cause amended maintenance schedules, replacement of parts or grounding. The fault might have been human error in which case the experience, amount of rest the pilot had, or the mistake that took a split second to make all be be evaluated and procedures implemented to avoid the same on another flight.

This actually sounds like something we should be doing in the gun debate. You are right there. Problem is that it is a political issue - airline safety is not *for the most part. The push back from gun owners is tied to the emotionally laden press for new controls based on erroneous facts or facts that are cherry picked and massaged from the opposing side - gun control. The gun control crowd wants any and all legislation passed as long as it is anti-gun - they don't care. What we need is an NTSB type investigation that is not poluted by politics, by the administration or by lobby groups. Just the facts and recommendations... Not some knee jerk response.

So yes, maybe nothing happens when there is a tragedy due to a gun, but as a political issue versus aircraft safety and procedures then you shouldn't be surprised. If the anti gun crowd would accept compromise themselves, perhaps we'd get somewhere on the issue.

Your claims are bullshit, sorry. All Boeing dreamliners were recently grounded due to battery failures but the cause is unknown.
You claim that the only discussion being had is only from the anti gun crowd and they aren't compromising, that is incorrect and exhibit A would be the presidents own executive orders. On the other hand what has the pro gun side proposed?

Just to localize it for you, look at the gun threads, how many people are asking for guns to be banned? How many are claiming the left wants to ban guns?

The pro gun nuts have all ate up the NRA propaganda that the left wants to take your guns.

One side is indeed to for compromise.

 

[cwjerome]

Fixed that for you.

Hah, right... Karmy's thread is Exhibit A in irrational anti-gun nuttery. Apparently you fit right in.

 

[micrometers]

Thanks for the response. I will concede the following similarities:

1. A resentment of government.
2. Immersion in the "gun culture".
3. Strong support for second amendment rights.
4. The claim that the number of people he killed was insignificant.
5. A certain degree of callousness.

Now, let's look at two important differences.

First and most obviously, McVeigh was a murderer. The NRA does not go around blowing up buildings, and they don't condone murder. In fact, they run gun safety programs and so forth.

Second, McVeigh didn't care about the number of people he killed. This makes the character of his claim of "insignificance" rather different than those of pro-gun people after Newtown.

The NRA and gun rights supporters are not saying that the deaths don't matter, only that they should be put in context before proposing legislation that restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens and may not even be effective. McVeigh was saying that the deaths truly didn't matter.

Your entire argument is an association fallacy, meant to castigate one group over having a belief in common with another. It's the equivalent of this:

1. The Unabomber was a terrorist.
2. The Unabomber believed strongly in free speech.
3. The ACLU believes strongly in free speech.
4. Therefore, the ACLU is like the Unabomber.

No.

Look, praising the NRA for not condoning murder seems a little rich. Of course they don't, it is obvious.

What the NRA does do is encourage anti-government feelings of the sort that McVeigh had. It is profitable for them.

For starters, owning a gun in modern america is not essential like it was in 19th century America. There are no wild Indians raiding settlements. There are no coyotes or wolves eating your livestock. We're largely urban/suburban.

So, when a guy feels that keeping the gun around is too much trouble, when psychos go out and kill people and outraged elected representatives try to do something about the weapon that they use, the NRA needs some fallback.

The 2nd amendment solutions certainly furthers their agenda. It elevates gun ownership over what it really is: a good, a toy, really, and into something vaguely pertaining to the constitution.

In other words, "2nd amendment solutions" is quite profitable for them.

There are other factors. A lot of the anti-government feeling was stoked by Vietnam. But nonetheless, McVeigh is an outgrowth, an unintended outgrowth to be sure, but a logical outgrowth of that militai culture.

Compared to the ACLU, it is like how the Westboro Baptist church is an outgrowth of the ACLU's litigious culture. Unintended, certainly, but in-line with many of the tenets of free speech. I for one do believe that the Westboro Baptists should be arrested and thrown in jail, stomped out.