Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,261,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 1,351 to 1,416 of 1416
  1. #1351
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I guess first I'll ask what the difference is between a Trump Republican, and a run of the mill Republican.

    Moving on...

    Trump just signed a budget bill with triple-digit million dollar spending increases. (Rule #4)

    Trump has proposed a 1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure bill (Rule #4 again)

    Only 200 million of it is covered in the federal budget. The other 1.3 trillion has to come from tax increases (Rule #3)

    Massive expansion of border infrastructure also violates rule 3, especially when half the country supports completely open borders

    The act of using this border infrastructure in order to deny American businesses access to cheaper labor violates Rule #2

    Frankly any "America First" policy is a violation of Rule #2 on some level.

    Finally, an overturning of Roe v Wade, which Trump supports, would pretty much violate all four of those pillars
    Even though I only responded to the Roe v Wade one, all of these are up for debate.
  2. #1352
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Even though I only responded to the Roe v Wade one, all of these are up for debate.
    Well if you're not saying "all of those are completely wrong". I'll take that to mean that you agree that Republicans are just as capable as anyone of bending their ideology when it suits a pet cause. Democrats don't have a monopoly on cognitive dissonance.
  3. #1353
    Sure. It should be noted that the Republican ethos is what Spoon posted though.
  4. #1354
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Am I being pedantic for calling out the difference between "meddling" and "collusion"????
    Yes, you sound desparate.
  5. #1355
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Is this even still a thing? Collusion happens, it's perfectly normal, and both sides are "guilty" of this. As for the "meddling", USA are the most guilty nation in the world when it comes to meddling with other nations' affairs.

    And anyone who still talks about the Russians as though they "hacked" the election, these are the people who are desperate.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  6. #1356
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Doing it isn't bad; everyone does it!

    They didn't do it!
    Sorry, wait, who's a desperate screeching banshee?
  7. #1357
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Is this even still a thing? Collusion happens, it's perfectly normal, and both sides are "guilty" of this.
    No collusion is not normal.

    What is normal, is one nation making efforts to influence political outcomes in another nation. The vocabulatory consensus (a term I just made up) is that this describes "meddling". "Collusion" is something else. That would be one a candidate gets an advantage in the election from another government, in exchange for some kind of commitment to put that foreign government's concerns above your own.

    That is EXTRA fucking bad, and it's most definitely not normal.

    As for the "meddling", USA are the most guilty nation in the world when it comes to meddling with other nations' affairs.
    So? If it bothers you, do something about it. In the meantime, that doesn't mean that anyone who does it to us should get a pass. You seem to be applying a schoolyard standard of fairness to geopolitical affairs. Cmon Ong, it's grown-up time.

    And anyone who still talks about the Russians as though they "hacked" the election, these are the people who are desperate.
    Eh...it's 50/50.

    The most offensive of Russia's actions involved "hacking" of the DNC. That charge is proven true. It's also highly suspected, but not definitively proven, that the Russian's hacked John Podesta's email. So the word "hack" isn't totally offisides here.

    However, almost everyone who says it, is using it in a context that suggests Russia's efforts affected the outcome of the election. Furthermore, there is usually an insinuation that the election result, and Trump's presidency, is invalid.
  8. #1358
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Sorry, wait, who's a desperate screeching banshee?
    You, for taking my comments out of context.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #1359
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by banana
    No collusion is not normal.

    What is normal, is one nation making efforts to influence political outcomes in another nation.
    Yeah ok, this isn't a sementics issue, I was wrong to say collusion is normal. Wrong word. Alliances, partnerships, mutual interests, these are normal.

    So? If it bothers you, do something about it. In the meantime, that doesn't mean that anyone who does it to us should get a pass. You seem to be applying a schoolyard standard of fairness to geopolitical affairs. Cmon Ong, it's grown-up time.
    It doesn't really bother me, not like it used to. I just think it's somewhat hypocritical to be all "America fuck yeah" one minute then "don't fuck with America" the next.

    The most offensive of Russia's actions involved "hacking" of the DNC. That charge is proven true.
    It is? Source please, as this would directly contradict what I've been reading. The DNC "hack" was not a hack, it was an internal leak. Prove otherwise, since you claim the hacking has been "proven true".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #1360
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah ok, this isn't a sementics issue, I was wrong to say collusion is normal. Wrong word. Alliances, partnerships, mutual interests, these are normal.
    eh....close enough

    It doesn't really bother me, not like it used to. I just think it's somewhat hypocritical to be all "America fuck yeah" one minute then "don't fuck with America" the next.
    This is like a general in a warzone saying it's ok that they shoot our guys because we are shooting their guys. That's not how it works. Again, you're applying some fucked up schoolyard morality code here. I realize, that Russia is a country and will take actions, even against the US, that support its agenda. That doesn't mean i have to let it happen. that doesn't mean I shouldn't be offended when it does happen. that doesn't mean that I shouldn't demand that my government prevent it from happening. And just because I'm making that demand, should not deter me from also demanding that my own government engage in whatever actions, including election meddling, satisfies our agenda. This is war kiddo.

    when I said "if it bothers you", I was speaking more broadly. If other countries don't like the US meddling, then stop us. At the same time, we'll try to stop you. That's where the outrage comes from. No one should be shocked that Russia does this stuff. But we should be super-pissed that it was so easy for them.

    It is? Source please, as this would directly contradict what I've been reading. The DNC "hack" was not a hack, it was an internal leak. Prove otherwise, since you claim the hacking has been "proven true".
    Have you even been paying attention??

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/20...cts/index.html
    The Washington Post reports hackers working for the Russian government accessed the DNC's computer system
    A cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC posts a public notice on its website describing an attack on the political committee's computer network by two groups associated with Russian intelligence
    The FBI announces it has launched an investigation into the DNC hack. Although the statement doesn't indicate that the agency has a particular suspect or suspects in mind, US officials tell CNN they think the cyberattack is linked to Russia.
    The Washington Post reports the CIA has determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign.
    Sources tell CNN that although US intelligence agencies share the belief that Russia played a role in the computer hacks,
    CNN reports that Russian hackers accessed computer accounts of Republican lawmakers and GOP organizations.
    President Obama issues an executive order with sanctions against Russia. The order names six Russian individuals who allegedly took part in the presidential campaign hacking.
    the Office of the Director of National Intelligence releases a declassified version of its classified report on Russian meddling. According to the report, hackers did not breach voting machines or computers that tallied election results but Russians meddled in other ways. Putin ordered a multifaceted influence campaign that included spreading pro-Trump propaganda online and hacking the DNC and Podesta
    Trump issues a statement after his meeting with intelligence officials. In the statement, he acknowledges that the Russian government may have been linked to the DNC hacking
    In public remarks, Putin says that hacking during the presidential election campaign may have been carried out by patriotic Russian citizens who felt compelled to respond to perceived slights against Russia from America
    Also this..
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/...ector-national

    The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
  11. #1361
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    ...even against the US...
    Why were any alleged Russian actions against USA? They were in favour of one party and not the other. One could argue an easing of tensions is good for America.

    And none of that list is proof, not even close. It's the CNN, Washington Post, Obama, the FBI... this is basically a list of people your beloved leader would call "fake news". How are you even buying that shite?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  12. #1362
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Trump issues a statement after his meeting with intelligence officials. In the statement, he acknowledges that the Russian government may have been linked to the DNC hacking
    Oh, apart from this.

    Note the word "may". Does that pass as proof these days?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #1363
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why were any alleged Russian actions against USA? They were in favour of one party and not the other. One could argue an easing of tensions is good for America.
    What show are you watching?? It's been widely publicized, very recently even, that the Russian's intention was to "sow discord". That's an action against the USA.

    Also, you spelled favor wrong.

    And none of that list is proof, not even close. It's the CNN, Washington Post, Obama, the FBI... this is basically a list of people your beloved leader would call "fake news". How are you even buying that shite?
    CNN was nice enough to compile everything in one nice neat package for me. Search a bit...you'll find Fox, Breitbart, NY Post, all saying the same thing.

    Also, the final link, which shows the official statement from the Department Of Homeland security, representing the agreed-upon findings of several national intelligence agencies, is pretty compelling.
  14. #1364
    Ong, you live in Putin's world of "nothing is true and anything is possible"

    When you ask someone to prove something, if you don't make the conditions that would satisfy your request explicit, at least have in mind what they might be.
  15. #1365
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Ong, you live in Putin's world of "nothing is true and anything is possible"
    Haha jeez, living in Putin's world.

    I live in my world. It's not the real world, it's a hazy world of weed, tea and chess. If I lived in Putin's world, I'd be on the other side of the fence when it comes to capitalism. The people who live in Putin's world are the morons waving socialist flags about.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  16. #1366
    Tucker Carlson's show is just fucking great.
  17. #1367
    I can't believe it, Very Stable Genius is doing the impossible on the shooting topic.
  18. #1368
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I can't believe it, Very Stable Genius is doing the impossible on the shooting topic.
    Headline: Sicko totalitarian fascist dictator forces bump-stock manufacturers into unemployment
  19. #1369
    Can you imagine how upset CNN would be if an armed teacher blows the head off a man murdering children?
  20. #1370
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Can you imagine how upset CNN would be if an armed teacher blows the head off a man murdering children?
    Can you imagine their glee if an armed teacher accidentally discharges his gun and blows a kid's head off?

    And since when it is the teacher's jobs to be armed guards for schools?

    Fuck you guys are living in a crazy world.
  21. #1371
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Can you imagine their glee if an armed teacher accidentally discharges his gun and blows a kid's head off?
    I can't actually. Their glee would be intense.

    And since when it is the teacher's jobs to be armed guards for schools?
    Only ones that want to and are qualified.

    Great way to get rid of school shootings.
  22. #1372
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    Great way to get rid of school shootings.
    So they're going to just go somewhere else and start shooting. What's the difference? I guess you could argue kids' lives are worth more than other people's, but still...

    I know it sounds crazy, but the solution to gun deaths is probably not giving more people guns.
  23. #1373
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So they're going to just go somewhere else and start shooting.
    I'm glad we've established that concealed carry is a murder deterrent and that a "gun free zone" is a murder incentive.
  24. #1374
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I'm glad we've established that concealed carry is a murder deterrent and that a "gun free zone" is a murder incentive.
    tou fucking che
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #1375
    What's clear is that you have more guns than any other country and more gun deaths and half of you think the reason is there aren't enough guns. It's baffling.
  26. #1376
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Looks like indictments into the Clinton cartel may come sooner than I expected. The Democrat-media complex is finally catching on to what the whispers from Trump insiders have been saying for months: that Mueller has been investigating the cartel under the guise of investigating the fabricated Trump stuff. Now that some things have come to light about the Clinton cartel and Mueller looking into them, the Democrat-media complex has swiftly turned on a dime regarding Mueller, from loving him to calling for his resignation.
    Sup bro?
  27. #1377
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What's clear is that you have more guns than any other country and more gun deaths and half of you think the reason is there aren't enough guns. It's baffling.
    What's also clear is if you have a gun and are intent on shooting people, if you know teachers are armed, you're not going to a school and instead will go somewhere you're unlikely to face resistance.

    Giving guns to the right people isn't baffling. Specialist teachers? Sounds good to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #1378
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What's also clear is if you have a gun and are intent on shooting people, if you know teachers are armed, you're not going to a school and instead will go somewhere you're unlikely to face resistance.
    So mass shootings are acceptable as long as they don't take place in a school. Gotcha.
  29. #1379
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Sup bro?
    What specifically?
  30. #1380
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So mass shootings are acceptable as long as they don't take place in a school. Gotcha.
    Think about it a little more critically.
  31. #1381
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So mass shootings are acceptable as long as they don't take place in a school. Gotcha.
    That's one crazy leap of logic.

    I'm pointing out that guns are a deterrant. If EVRYONE was armed, well now you're going to have a really hard time finding a vulnerable target.

    And I'm not ashamed to say that I'd be less horrified to see a bunch of adults mercilessly killed than kids. Is that old fashioned? Am I being ageist or something?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #1382
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Think about it a little more critically.
    No, you.
  33. #1383
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's one crazy leap of logic.

    I'm pointing out that guns are a deterrant. If EVRYONE was armed, well now you're going to have a really hard time finding a vulnerable target.

    And I'm not ashamed to say that I'd be less horrified to see a bunch of adults mercilessly killed than kids. Is that old fashioned? Am I being ageist or something?
    I'm only taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

    But let's look at things more carefully. There's how many schools in the US and how many mass school shootings a year? (Of course any number > 0 is too many, but ignore that for now). The chance of a mass shooting in any given school in any given year is astronomically small. Putting guns in the hands of teachers will lead to at least some shootings (accidents or otherwise) that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and simply move the mass killers to another patch of turf.

    The sum number of deaths will go up, not down.
  34. #1384
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I'm only taking your argument to its logical conclusion.

    But let's look at things more carefully. There's how many schools in the US and how many mass school shootings a year? (Of course any number > 0 is too many, but ignore that for now). The chance of a mass shooting in any given school in any given year is astronomically small. Putting guns in the hands of teachers will lead to at least some shootings (accidents or otherwise) that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and simply move the mass killers to another patch of turf.

    The sum number of deaths will go up, not down.
    Why do they choose schools now?
  35. #1385
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why do they choose schools now?
    Did you even read what I said?
  36. #1386
    I'm not going to play a game.
  37. #1387
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What's clear is that you have more guns than any other country and more gun deaths and half of you think the reason is there aren't enough guns. It's baffling.
    I can play this game too.

    there are fewer households than ever that have guns

    There are more restrictions on owning guns than ever.

    Yet no one over 35 remembers growing up with school shootings.

    Again, history has shown Less Guns + More Restrictions = More shootings.

    And there are people out there calling for LESS GUNS AND MORE RESTRICTIONS!! That's baffling!!
  38. #1388
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    What specifically?
    That was like a year ago. Where's the Clinton indictments? I thought Mueller was low key gunnin for the "Clinton Cartel" and indictments were right around the corner. Dems wanted Mueller to resign(who? when? source?) What happened, bro?
  39. #1389
    Four months ago dawg. I said sooner than I expected; my expectation was several years from then, probably past 2020 territory. Quite a lot has happened in the four months that I said that, more than I expected. When I said that, I thought it would be weak enough to not tangle Obama up in it. Well, I undershot that one since he's deep in it now.
  40. #1390
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I can play this game too.

    there are fewer households than ever that have guns

    There are more restrictions on owning guns than ever.

    Yet no one over 35 remembers growing up with school shootings.

    Again, history has shown Less Guns + More Restrictions = More shootings.

    And there are people out there calling for LESS GUNS AND MORE RESTRICTIONS!! That's baffling!!
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...orage-and-use/
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...-data-quality/
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  41. #1391
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Putting guns in the hands of teachers will lead to at least some shootings (accidents or otherwise) that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and simply move the mass killers to another patch of turf.
    Why? You're making assumptions here that are very probably not true. Accidents? These teachers will be trained. Do you see security guards outside the Whitehouse accidentally shooting tourists? Fuck's sake. Deliberate? If someone is that way inclined, then it was probably going to happen anyway, and, as a teacher, one imagines they would legally be able to obtain a gun. So you're not stopping any accidental or deliberate shootings by not giving teachers guns, that's absolute bollocks that hasn't been remotely thought through.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #1392
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Why? You're making assumptions here that are very probably not true. Accidents? These teachers will be trained. Do you see security guards outside the Whitehouse accidentally shooting tourists? Fuck's sake. Deliberate? If someone is that way inclined, then it was probably going to happen anyway, and, as a teacher, one imagines they would legally be able to obtain a gun. So you're not stopping any accidental or deliberate shootings by not giving teachers guns, that's absolute bollocks that hasn't been remotely thought through.

    What's bollocks is arguing from very small samples of people with very high levels of training. Any estimate of the number of accidental gun deaths caused by arming teachers can only be a positive number. It might be a small number, but adding any guns to the American school system will result in more gun deaths overall than adding zero guns.

    Gun accidents happen, even when people are trained. They don't happen when there's no guns. As for non-accidental gun deaths, the same holds. Start with an estimate of zero and go up.

    Here's someone who's trained to use a gun accidentally shooting himself if you need proof.



    If your goal is to eliminate or reduce school shootings, then sure have armed guards all over the place, surround the school with barbed wire and electrified fences. That'll work. But it will only work because the people who currently go to schools to do mass killings will go somewhere else instead. It won't reduce the overall death toll from guns.
  43. #1393
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Any estimate of the number of accidental gun deaths caused by arming teachers can only be a positive number.
    Ok, but exactly the same can be said to the contrary... the estimate of how many gunmen will get shot by teachers can only be a positive number.

    What do you suppose is more frequent? Gun accidents (relating to trained people whose job it is to protect children)? Or school shootings?
    Further, which do you suppose has the higher average death count?

    It should be obvious that the lives saved by arming teachers will be significantly higher than any deaths caused by accidents, which will probably be something like one death a decade.

    My sample size is not small. Ok there's only a handful of security guards at the Whitehouse, but you can take that further, you don't have to assume literally just the Whitehouse.

    How many trained armed personnel accidentally shoot and kill people? Give me a yearly figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #1394
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok, but exactly the same can be said to the contrary... the estimate of how many gunmen will get shot by teachers can only be a positive number.

    What do you suppose is more frequent? Gun accidents (relating to trained people whose job it is to protect children)? Or school shootings?
    Further, which do you suppose has the higher average death count?

    It should be obvious that the lives saved by arming teachers will be significantly higher than any deaths caused by accidents, which will probably be something like one death a decade.

    My sample size is not small. Ok there's only a handful of security guards at the Whitehouse, but you can take that further, you don't have to assume literally just the Whitehouse.

    How many trained armed personnel accidentally shoot and kill people? Give me a yearly figure.
    You're still insisting on solving the equation as if eliminating or reducing school shootings is the only goal; and if that's the case then I agree, arming teachers will lead to fewer school mass shootings and fewer deaths from school mass shootings.

    My argument is that the problems with gun deaths in the US aren't restricted to school mass shootings and that your solution will have the net effect of increasing deaths from guns overall by moving the mass shootings to other places and causing an increase in accidental shootings.
  45. #1395
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    The "accidental shootings" is negligible and has no real place in this discussion. When we're talking about people whose job it is to protect others, then for sure there are more lives saved by arming people than there are lives lost.

    I don't know how you get to a net increase in deaths by arming teachers, forcing potential mass killers to go elsewhere for their killing spree.

    And yes, reducing school shootings should certainly be a priority, like the first place to start when it comes to dealing with the problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #1396
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    It seems USA goes one way or the other...

    1. less guns,
    2. more guns, but give them to the right people.

    I don't think option 1 is all that logical. Who gives up their guns? Not the people likely to use them for shooting kids. Less guns means less for law abiding citizens. You're disarming the wrong people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #1397
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The "accidental shootings" is negligible and has no real place in this discussion.
    The estimate i have is 3800 accidental deaths from guns last year. Hard to believe giving guns to more people will reduce that.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    When we're talking about people whose job it is to protect others, then for sure there are more lives saved by arming people than there are lives lost.
    It's not a teacher's job to be an armed guard, and nor should it be. If my uni told me we had a problem with mass shootings at unis and so they wanted me to go on a training course and carry a gun to lectures I would tell them to fuck right off.





    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't know how you get to a net increase in deaths by arming teachers, forcing potential mass killers to go elsewhere for their killing spree.
    It's not difficult to see - number of overall killing sprees doesn't change, number of accidental killings goes up.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    And yes, reducing school shootings should certainly be a priority, like the first place to start when it comes to dealing with the problem.
    Ok fine. But don't expect teachers to double as bodyguards.
  48. #1398
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The "accidental shootings" is negligible and has no real place in this discussion. When we're talking about people whose job it is to protect others, then for sure there are more lives saved by arming people than there are lives lost.
    3,695 unintentional gun deaths between 2010-2016 in the US. So roughly 670 per year. Wouldn't say negligible.

    https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc...ction_inj.html

    Edit: Hm seems to differ quite a bit from Poop's number, where'd you see that? Those 3695 were listed under "unintentional", dunno if same as accidental.
    Last edited by CoccoBill; Today at 09:42 AM.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  49. #1399
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    3,695 unintentional gun deaths between 2010-2016 in the US. So roughly 670 per year. Wouldn't say negligible.

    https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc...ction_inj.html

    Edit: Hm seems to differ quite a bit from Poop's number, where'd you see that? Those 3695 were listed under "unintentional", dunno if same as accidental.

    My bad.

    Your figure is right, I read it too quickly.
  50. #1400
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It seems USA goes one way or the other...

    1. less guns,
    2. more guns, but give them to the right people.

    I don't think option 1 is all that logical. Who gives up their guns? Not the people likely to use them for shooting kids. Less guns means less for law abiding citizens. You're disarming the wrong people.
    1. is pretty much undoable at this point, even some redneck nightmare mass government confiscations would take years and only scratch the surface. Finland is sort of in the same situation, due to them russians and hunting being a popular activity Finland has one of the highest per capita gun numbers in the EU. And guess what, we're also pretty much at the top for gun related violence.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  51. #1401
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    3,695 unintentional gun deaths between 2010-2016 in the US. So roughly 670 per year. Wouldn't say negligible.
    Ok, now how many of those people who accidentally discharged their weapon were sufficiently trained in how to handle their weapon? Further, how many of them were responsible people going about their daily routine?

    Some redneck shooting his daughter instead of a tornado doesn't compare to a trained teacher taking some kid's head off by accident.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #1402
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    It's not a teacher's job to be an armed guard, and nor should it be.
    The first part is something that can change, and the second part is a matter of opinion.

    If my uni told me we had a problem with mass shootings at unis and so they wanted me to go on a training course and carry a gun to lectures I would tell them to fuck right off.
    Fair enough. Would all teachers say "fuck off"? It only needs a handful, I'm not suggesting all teachers should be armed.

    It's not difficult to see - number of overall killing sprees doesn't change, number of accidental killings goes up.
    Fucking accidental killings, I really can't believe that's part of this dicsussion. 3800? Fuck's sake, that number is obviously including morons.

    Ok fine. But don't expect teachers to double as bodyguards.
    Why? Some will be happy to. Just because you're uncomfortable with it, doesn't mean I shouldn't expect it. It's gonna happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #1403
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    1. is pretty much undoable at this point, even some redneck nightmare mass government confiscations would take years and only scratch the surface. Finland is sort of in the same situation, due to them russians and hunting being a popular activity Finland has one of the highest per capita gun numbers in the EU. And guess what, we're also pretty much at the top for gun related violence.
    Finally I know where you are! I assumed Europe, but never actually knew. Finland has a gun problem? I thought you guys were all nutjobs driving 4x4s up snowy hills, didn't think you guys had murderous intent in you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #1404
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    I guess everyone can agree that a gun is less harmful in the hands of a trained, sane and not-evil person. What I can't wrap my head around is the resistance to make it harder for people not fitting that criteria to get guns. I simply can't believe how someone can be so afraid of their government and their neighbors that they'd rather give lunatics and convicted felons free access to buy guns, because they feel restricting that might lead to dem guv'ment comin for muh guns.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  55. #1405
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    The ONLY time I can see a serious risk of "accidental shooting" in a school environment is if there is actually an ongoing incident. But surely you take that as collateral? Teacher takes out the killer and a student in the crossfire? Better than 20 kids getting shot.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #1406
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    What I can't wrap my head around is the resistance to make it harder for people not fitting that criteria to get guns.
    I'm with you here, I find it strange that banana is happy for people who post "ominous shit" to have guns, simply because their right to say "ominous shit" is protected by the 1A. That resistance is baffling.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #1407
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Finally I know where you are! I assumed Europe, but never actually knew. Finland has a gun problem? I thought you guys were all nutjobs driving 4x4s up snowy hills, didn't think you guys had murderous intent in you.
    I think I've told that a couple times in the past, at least I'm sure wuf knows. Well it's not in the news and I'm sure many people here don't realize it, but we do top the EU charts for gun violence per capita. I would think the majority of them are suicides and accidents, homicide isn't too common here, just a few cases a year. Out of those, I'm sure most were drunk.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  58. #1408
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Ah, suicides, of course. That bastard cold and all that winter darkness. I was aware Sweden had such a problem, it's kind of how the Swedes are sterotyped here... flat pack furniture manufacturers, bad pop bands, and suicidal farmers.

    Finns... I think because you're so successful at F1 and other driving sports, we just assume you're all laid back awesome drivers.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  59. #1409
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Are you guys proud of Nico Rosberg? Or do you hate him because he's a pretend German?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #1410
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I guess everyone can agree that a gun is less harmful in the hands of a trained, sane and not-evil person. What I can't wrap my head around is the resistance to make it harder for people not fitting that criteria to get guns.
    Who's making that determination?? I posted an article yesterday where a shrink admits to having no justifiable reason to involuntarily admit a man to a psychiatric facility against his will. Yet she did it anyway because SHE decided that it would be cool if he weren't allowed to buy a gun.

    I would rather let maniacs have guns than let doctors lock up innocent people and remove their rights without due process.

    I simply can't believe how someone can be so afraid of their government and their neighbors that they'd rather give lunatics and convicted felons free access to buy guns, because they feel restricting that might lead to dem guv'ment comin for muh guns.
    Lunatics can't get guns. If someone has been adjudicated as mentally ill, they can't buy a gun.

    Convicted felons, can't buy guns either.

    So what's your problem? Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be wary of further restrictions? If it's not to stop felons, or lunatics....who would the restrictions be for then???

    Teh capitol police, which protects members of congress, is armed with semi-automatic weapons, high-ammo clips, and all that shit. So I have a real fucking problem with a member of congress saying "yes we need these weapons to protect us, but you don't need them to protect your family" That's fucking bullshit.
  61. #1411
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are you guys proud of Nico Rosberg? Or do you hate him because he's a pretend German?
    He's finnish when he wins, german when he loses.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  62. #1412
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Who's making that determination?? I posted an article yesterday where a shrink admits to having no justifiable reason to involuntarily admit a man to a psychiatric facility against his will. Yet she did it anyway because SHE decided that it would be cool if he weren't allowed to buy a gun.

    I would rather let maniacs have guns than let doctors lock up innocent people and remove their rights without due process.
    I would rather try to improve both situations than throw my hands up in the air and wave them like I just don't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Lunatics can't get guns. If someone has been adjudicated as mentally ill, they can't buy a gun.

    Convicted felons, can't buy guns either.
    C'mon you know better, they can just (for example) go online and buy a gun, or if it's not a federal crime they can go to some other state or other bs like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Teh capitol police, which protects members of congress, is armed with semi-automatic weapons, high-ammo clips, and all that shit. So I have a real fucking problem with a member of congress saying "yes we need these weapons to protect us, but you don't need them to protect your family" That's fucking bullshit.
    Well that's a completely separate issue. You might though have difficulty finding people there if they weren't protected.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  63. #1413
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,450
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    He's finnish when he wins, german when he loses.
    Kind of like Andy Murray.

    He's British when he wins, Scottish when he loses. It's great, I can be happy no matter what. Yay we have a great tennis player, or yay the miserable Scot lost.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #1414
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    I would rather try to improve both situations than throw my hands up in the air and wave them like I just don't care.
    This is pollyanna stuff. Have you and monkey been sharing notes??

    How do you even begin to predict what someone will do with a gun? If you KNOW someone is mentally ill and unstable, there's paperwork and shit that prevents that person from buying a gun. In the absence of that...people are innocent until proven guilty. So you really can't start making determinations about who should and shouldn't have guns without violating the right to due process.

    C'mon you know better, they can just (for example) go online and buy a gun, or if it's not a federal crime they can go to some other state or other bs like that.
    You have no idea what you're talking about

    Well that's a completely separate issue. You might though have difficulty finding people there if they weren't protected.
    It is absolutely NOT a separate issue. It's the CORE issue.

    If congress says that they deserve more protections, and more rights than the ordinary citizen, then they are creating the type of privileged ruling class that the bill of rights, and the second amendment were designed to prevent. If you think that's ok, you don't belong in America.
  65. #1415
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,450
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    This is pollyanna stuff. Have you and monkey been sharing notes??
    Any chance you'd once reply to something without kindergarten level name calling, insults and general douchebaggery? I'm running out of doubt benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    How do you even begin to predict what someone will do with a gun? If you KNOW someone is mentally ill and unstable, there's paperwork and shit that prevents that person from buying a gun. In the absence of that...people are innocent until proven guilty. So you really can't start making determinations about who should and shouldn't have guns without violating the right to due process.
    Professionals in the field (psychology, sociology, criminology, policy etc) are better equipped to say exactly which markers should determine the policy, but just because the current policy isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be made better. People are innocent until proven guilty, sure, but that doesn't mean certain high risk behavior couldn't temporarily limit one's rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You have no idea what you're talking about.
    Such a convincing argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    It is absolutely NOT a separate issue. It's the CORE issue.

    If congress says that they deserve more protections, and more rights than the ordinary citizen, then they are creating the type of privileged ruling class that the bill of rights, and the second amendment were designed to prevent. If you think that's ok, you don't belong in America.
    No, it's a completely separate issue that can be decided completely independent of measures against school shootings.

    And no I don't think it's ok, and no I don't belong in America that's why I'm not there. Any other hyperbole and strawmen you want to get off your chest?
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

    You wake me up early in the morning to tell me that I'm right? Please wait until I'm wrong.

  66. #1416
    Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
    Any chance you'd once reply to something without kindergarten level name calling, insults and general douchebaggery? I'm running out of doubt benefits.
    Sure. Just make a post that's not hopelessly naive, and you'll see.

    Professionals in the field (psychology, sociology, criminology, policy etc) are better equipped to say exactly which markers should determine the policy,
    No, they aren't. This is just....just...wrong man. First of all, just the anecdotal evidence is incredibly compelling. One of the most prominent liberal newspapers in the country, ran an op-ed about the most prominent social issue of the day where the author confessed to violating a man's constitutional rights, for entirely selfish reasons.

    Due process must be meted out by people educated on THE LAW.

    but just because the current policy isn't perfect doesn't mean it can't be made better.
    What do you mean by "better"? Because I think a policy that preserves people's constitutional rights is "better" than a policy that restricts guns. You're clearly using "better" to describe your chosen agenda.

    People are innocent until proven guilty, sure, but that doesn't mean certain high risk behavior couldn't temporarily limit one's rights.
    Actually.....that's EXACTLY what it means.

    Such a convincing argument.
    The argument that you posted, to which I gave that response, was completely uninformed and devoid of any facts. Your move.

    No, it's a completely separate issue that can be decided completely independent of measures against school shootings.
    No it isn't. The measures being suggested are bans on certain types of weapons. Not just a ban in schools....a BAN. So it's not a separate issue. It's the CORE issue. You can't say certain people are worthy of a higher level of protection, and other people are not. That's not how America works. You can't separate the issues just so you can have your way.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •