|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Feb 19, 2018 7:02:40 GMT
That wasn't a terrorist attack. Agreed! But you can bet that some think tank funded by the left doing a data study is going to classify and report the Florida school shooting as terrorism, when at the very same time they classify the DC sniper attacks in 2002 as only a domestic dispute between a husband and wife. I'm serious, they really did classify the DC sniper (John Allen Muhammad) that way even though he was convicted of terrorism charges.
I followed the trail on one of these data studies a couple of years ago, actually got a copy of the source data and found this to be what they had done in categorizing the attack. You can be sure that some college prof used the study to lecture her students. I know that news outlets used it in such headlines as "White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat.." or "Far Right Extremists Are Bigger Threat....". DO NOT believe these studies unless you have seen the source data and the full report. All it takes is a misclassification of data to get the results they want. The MSM will proceed to write lengthy articles or op-ed pieces quoting the data study, but the data study is deeply flawed. It's not science when it's biased. People are being fooled by this all f'ing time! This is one of my areas of expertise and the dishonesty I see is staggering.
Come on, we all know that the methods used for classifying whether or not something is a terrorist attack is a load of horse shit. The guidelines were written by Republicans during the George W. Bush administration for the purpose of putting an end to environmental pollution protests once and for all, as a service to oil companies like Chevron and Exxon. It was no accident that the former CEO of Chevron ended up in a key position in the George W. Bush administration and now the former CEO of Exxon holds a key position in the Trump Administration. This is and has been a right wing political stunt to victimize the public without any consequences. Killing off the public by simultaneously cutting back public services while funding and training Alt-Right Trump supporters to go on shooting sprees at schools and other locations. The political implications of that are not good so it isn't surprising that you would do or say almost anything to try to keep the public from coming to the conclusion that the current government administration is trying to kill them off on purpose while looting the lower and middle classes to give to the top 1% most wealthy. Nazi Germany tried to do the same thing when they found their nation in a deep financial bind like what the U.S. is in right now, and Donald Trump will try to do exactly the same thing. Spurred on by the likes of Charles Koch, relative of Ilse Koch, one of the worst villains of the Holocaust. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Kochallthatsinteresting.com/ilse-kochExactly what the Trump administration is doing, just like the Nazi party, turning the public against democracy.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 9:00:36 GMT
You are right. I have never had gonorrhoea so I am in no position to say we should get rid of it. How dare I look at the effects of gonorrhoea in picture form and conclude that I am allowed an opinion about it. You are always entitled to have an opinion. But some opinions are informed. And some are ill-informed. Having gonorrhea and having a gun are two different things. Gonorrhea is a disease, an unappealing illness. People who have never had gonorrhea have had diseases and illnesses before. At least they have first hand knowledge and experience with diseases and illnesses. And nobody wants gonorrhea. Having a gun is something many people want. They find it appealing. Many people who are against guns have never had a gun. Or any experience with guns. They are less informed on guns than someone who has had a disease or illness. Everyone agrees gonorrhea is unappealing and unwanted. Not everybody agrees on the appeal of guns, and the desire to have them. Two different things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 9:05:45 GMT
In my experience, most people who advocate for gun control have never owned a gun, fired a gun, or taken a gun safety class. In my opinion, these people are least qualified to tell gun owners what they should, or should not do, with their guns. It is the same as someone seeing a car accident and saying, "I have never had a car, driven a car, or taken a safe driving class. But I think we should ban all cars." I know right. I was watching x factor a couple of weeks ago and they had a singer on there who I thought was terrible,but then it occurred to me I wasn't a singer or ever been on x factor myself so I obviously wasn't entitled to an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 9:37:38 GMT
In my experience, most people who advocate for gun control have never owned a gun, fired a gun, or taken a gun safety class. In my opinion, these people are least qualified to tell gun owners what they should, or should not do, with their guns. It is the same as someone seeing a car accident and saying, "I have never had a car, driven a car, or taken a safe driving class. But I think we should ban all cars." I know right. I was watching x factor a couple of weeks ago and they had a singer on there who I thought was terrible,but then it occurred to me I wasn't a singer or ever been on x factor myself so I obviously wasn't entitled to an opinion. No, you are entitled to your opinion. But just realize, you are coming from a different place than someone who is a singer. And you are a member of the audience. So that gives your opinion more weight than a person with no gun experience over gun owners. Two different things.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 9:52:30 GMT
In my experience, most people who advocate for gun control have never owned a gun, fired a gun, or taken a gun safety class. In my opinion, these people are least qualified to tell gun owners what they should, or should not do, with their guns. It is the same as someone seeing a car accident and saying, "I have never had a car, driven a car, or taken a safe driving class. But I think we should ban all cars." I know right. I was watching x factor a couple of weeks ago and they had a singer on there who I thought was terrible,but then it occurred to me I wasn't a singer or ever been on x factor myself so I obviously wasn't entitled to an opinion. My OP said nothing about people not having the right to an opinion. The correct analogy would be; People with no gun experience telling gun owners what to do with their guns, is the same as you telling someone they cannot sing when they are alone. People competing in a singing contest is different. Most gun owners do not perform for others. Singers perform for others. That gives audience members a say in the dynamic. Most gun owners do not perform for others. They don't have to care about others' opinions.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Feb 19, 2018 10:15:29 GMT
This issue isn't hard to figure out, it's not like it's particle physics or anything.
When you get rid of guns that are capable of firing more than six shots per reload then you get rid of the problem. You don't need a gun that fires more than 6 bullets per reload, that is overkill. Anything more than 6 shots per reload is a weapon of war, not self defense.
You don't need anything like an AR15 or any other semi automatic multi shot gun unless you are a terrorist or some other kind of criminal like in a drug gang or something, because those are the only sorts of people who use those.
You don't get to hunt wild pigs with a machine gun and that's final...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 10:19:24 GMT
I know right. I was watching x factor a couple of weeks ago and they had a singer on there who I thought was terrible,but then it occurred to me I wasn't a singer or ever been on x factor myself so I obviously wasn't entitled to an opinion. My OP said nothing about people not having the right to an opinion. The correct analogy would be; People with no gun experience telling gun owners what to do with their guns, is the same as you telling someone they cannot sing when they are alone. People competing in a singing contest is different. Most gun owners do not perform for others. Singers perform for others. That gives audience members a say in the dynamic. Most gun owners do not perform for others. They don't have to care about others' opinions. You are completely incapable of seeing the anology both myself and monkies have given. Just because you are a gun owner does not give your opinion more weight when it comes to the gun control debate,your arguments should stand and fall on their own merits not on the appeal to authority(gun ownership) fallacy you are attempting to employ. And people with "no gun experience" can give an informed opinion on gun control after having read and studied the issued or is your contention that owning a firearm automatically makes you more informed about "gun control debate" than someone who doesn't own one? What an absurd position you've taken in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 17:20:25 GMT
My OP said nothing about people not having the right to an opinion. The correct analogy would be; People with no gun experience telling gun owners what to do with their guns, is the same as you telling someone they cannot sing when they are alone. People competing in a singing contest is different. Most gun owners do not perform for others. Singers perform for others. That gives audience members a say in the dynamic. Most gun owners do not perform for others. They don't have to care about others' opinions. You are completely incapable of seeing the anology both myself and monkies have given. Just because you are a gun owner does not give your opinion more weight when it comes to the gun control debate,your arguments should stand and fall on their own merits not on the appeal to authority(gun ownership) fallacy you are attempting to employ. And people with "no gun experience" can give an informed opinion on gun control after having read and studied the issued or is your contention that owning a firearm automatically makes you more informed about "gun control debate" than someone who doesn't own one? What an absurd position you've taken in this thread. I disagree. Your position is absurd and illogical.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 17:22:22 GMT
This issue isn't hard to figure out, it's not like it's particle physics or anything. When you get rid of guns that are capable of firing more than six shots per reload then you get rid of the problem. You don't need a gun that fires more than 6 bullets per reload, that is overkill. Anything more than 6 shots per reload is a weapon of war, not self defense. You don't need anything like an AR15 or any other semi automatic multi shot gun unless you are a terrorist or some other kind of criminal like in a drug gang or something, because those are the only sorts of people who use those. You don't get to hunt wild pigs with a machine gun and that's final... You are entitled to your opinion. But the Second Ammendment says you don't get to decide what we need and don't need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 18:01:18 GMT
You are completely incapable of seeing the anology both myself and monkies have given. Just because you are a gun owner does not give your opinion more weight when it comes to the gun control debate,your arguments should stand and fall on their own merits not on the appeal to authority(gun ownership) fallacy you are attempting to employ. And people with "no gun experience" can give an informed opinion on gun control after having read and studied the issued or is your contention that owning a firearm automatically makes you more informed about "gun control debate" than someone who doesn't own one? What an absurd position you've taken in this thread. I disagree. Your position is absurd and illogical. My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it. Let me put it more simply for you: Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate": The academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject. The teenager who goes into his local sporting goods store and buys a glock. Who knows nothing about how many gun deaths there are in America,who owns them,what background checks are needed,what weapons are legal or illegal. You see in the real world most people are going to take the academics informed opinion despite the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In your world the teenagers opinion is more informed than the academics simply because he is a gun owner. Now do you see the absurdity of your OP?
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 18:32:04 GMT
I disagree. Your position is absurd and illogical. My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it. Let me put it more simply for you: Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate": The academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject. The teenager who goes into his local sporting goods store and buys a glock. Who knows nothing about how many gun deaths there are in America,who owns them,what background checks are needed,what weapons are legal or illegal. You see in the real world most people are going to take the academics informed opinion despite the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In your world the teenagers opinion is more informed than the academics simply because he is a gun owner. Now do you see the absurdity of your OP? The intelligent, mature and experienced gun owner will know more about guns than some cheesehead sitting behind a desk at some stupid college. Nobody said a lunatic, murderous teenager knew anything. That is a red herring. Nobody is trying to protect the gun rights of any stupid teenager. Experienced, mature gun owners don't want to be penalized because you panty waisted cheeseheads don't know the difference between mentally ill teenagers and a responsible gun owner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:17:02 GMT
My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it. Let me put it more simply for you: Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate": The academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject. The teenager who goes into his local sporting goods store and buys a glock. Who knows nothing about how many gun deaths there are in America,who owns them,what background checks are needed,what weapons are legal or illegal. You see in the real world most people are going to take the academics informed opinion despite the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In your world the teenagers opinion is more informed than the academics simply because he is a gun owner. Now do you see the absurdity of your OP? The intelligent, mature and experienced gun owner will know more about guns than some cheesehead sitting behind a desk at some stupid college. Nobody said lunatic, murderous teenagers knew anything. That is a red herring. Nobody is trying to protect the gun rights of any stupid teenager. Experienced, mature gun owners don't want to be penalized because you panty waisted cheeseheads don't know the difference between mentally ill teenagers and a responsible gun owner. And now you attempt to move the goalposts from your OP. Here's what you orginally said: And no a person who happens to be old and owns a gun is not automatically more qualified than somebody who has studied the issues surrounding gun control researched it extensively and written papers on the subject. The debate/and arguments about gun control should stand and fall on their own merits not on if the person making them is a gun owner or not. And now as well committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority,you've thrown in anti-intellectualism as well. And since I'm pretty sure you didn't go to a college stupid or otherwise let me give you an idea of what those terms mean:
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 19:19:22 GMT
The intelligent, mature and experienced gun owner will know more about guns than some cheesehead sitting behind a desk at some stupid college. Nobody said lunatic, murderous teenagers knew anything. That is a red herring. Nobody is trying to protect the gun rights of any stupid teenager. Experienced, mature gun owners don't want to be penalized because you panty waisted cheeseheads don't know the difference between mentally ill teenagers and a responsible gun owner. And now you attempt to move the goalposts from your OP. Here's what you orginally said: And no a person who happens to be old and owns a gun is not automatically more qualified than somebody who has studied the issues surrounding gun control researched it extensively and written papers on the subject. The debate/and arguments about gun control should stand and fall on their own merits not on if the person making them is a gun owner or not. And now as well committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority,you've thrown in anti-intellectualism as well. And since I'm pretty sure you didn't go to a college stupid or otherwise let me give you an idea of what those terms mean: I disagree. All my posts are consistent with my OP.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 19, 2018 20:02:45 GMT
I know right. I was watching x factor a couple of weeks ago and they had a singer on there who I thought was terrible,but then it occurred to me I wasn't a singer or ever been on x factor myself so I obviously wasn't entitled to an opinion. No, you are entitled to your opinion. But just realize, you are coming from a different place than someone who is a singer. And you are a member of the audience. So that gives your opinion more weight than a person with no gun experience over gun owners. Two different things. He is an audience member for the singing and is on the receiving end of the noise so is entitled to an opinion about it. Similarly, he can be on the receiving end of bullets, so is entitled to an opinion about the guns. And because this is a field that affects us all (guns are a public issue), his opinion is just as valid as the owners. In public matters, that is called democracy. It's sad that you think a public matter should not be subject to democracy.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 20:11:32 GMT
No, you are entitled to your opinion. But just realize, you are coming from a different place than someone who is a singer. And you are a member of the audience. So that gives your opinion more weight than a person with no gun experience over gun owners. Two different things. He is an audience member for the singing and is on the receiving end of the noise so is entitled to an opinion about it. Similarly, he can be on the receiving end of bullets, so is entitled to an opinion about the guns. And because this is a field that affects us all (guns are a public issue), his opinion is just as valid as the owners. In public matters, that is called democracy. It's sad that you think a public matter should not be subject to democracy. I never said he wasn't entitled to his opinion. As a matter of fact, I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. But as a responsible gun owner, it is obvious many of these gun control advocates have no idea what they are talking about. They are still entitled to their opinion. But after talking and listening to them, I don't give their opinions much weight because their inexperience shines through with their ill-informed positions.
|
|