Mass shooting in Florida high school; 17 dead

by Original Quill Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:35 am

First topic message reminder :

Yahoo News wrote:Sheriff: At Least 17 Dead In Florida High School Shooting; Ex-Student In Custody, ID’d
Lisa de Moraes•February 14, 2018

UPDATED, 3:25 PM: Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said at least 17 people are dead and more than a dozen wounded in the school shooting in Parkland, FL. He said 12 bodies were found inside the school, two outside the building, another on a street near the school and two died at a hospital.

The suspect has been identified as Nikolas Cruz, 19, a former student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who was expelled for disciplinary reasons. He is in police custody. Israel said police have recovered an AR-15 assault rifle they believe was used in the attack and that the suspect had “multiple magazines.”

PREVIOUSLY, 2:13 PM: Campus building are not safe to be cleared until the SWAT team on site says it’s safe and clear, he added. Students are still in the school building; Israel instructed parents looking for their child to go to a nearby Marriott, to which students are being transported as they are evacuated.

A male suspect, about 18 years old is in custody; he was apprehended without incident off campus in a nearby community, Israel said. The shooting suspect was, at various times during the shooting, outside and inside the building. He is a former student at the school.

Fox News Channel’s Shep Smith reported the suspect, who “knew the lay of the land” at the campus, was taken to a local hospital and was “being treated for we don’t know,” and will then be taken for processing.

TV news outlets abruptly dropped Washington-centric coverage Wednesday afternoon when a shooter attacked students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on Wednesday afternoon. Quick word of at least 20 shot in the school or on the campus triggered TV news pundit talk of Columbine High School massacre of 1999 in which 12 students and one teacher were murdered, and another 24 injured, by two heavily armed students who then committed suicide.

Cable news networks showed helicopter footage of ambulances swarming the area, victims being tended to on sidewalks, and a SWAT team heading with weapons drawn toward the high school attended by about 3K students. Dozens of teens could be seen running or walking from the building, some with hands raised over their heads to signal they did not have a weapon.

More than an hour after first reports of the shooting, local sheriff tweeted to warning the gunman, who had shot into the school from outside the building, still was at large:

Follow @browardsheriff for latest info on the #stonemanshooting. Shooter still at large.

Multiple students interviewed on CNN said students began running out of the building after someone pulled a fire alarm in the school about 10 minutes before end of school day; one reported they were told over the school’s intercom system to evacuate the building. As they exited, shots were heard, students told the network affiliate’s reporter.

One distraught mother marveled the network the city had just been named safest place to live in Florida.

White House said Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon had been alerted:

From Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters:

The President has been made aware of the school shooting in Florida. We are monitoring the situation. Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected.

Donald Trump Finally Breaks Silence, Scolds Press For Not Knowing He's "Totally Opposed To Domestic Violence"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/tv-networks-jump-florida-high-210531879.html

by Guest Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:20 pm

Here something for you to digest

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?

Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use. However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development. Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm-related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively. Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose on populations.

https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

by Guest Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:21 pm

Homicide
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

5. A summary of the evidence on guns and violent death

This book chapter summarizes the scientific literature on the relationship between gun prevalence (levels of household gun ownership) and suicide, homicide and unintentional firearm death and concludes that where there are higher levels of gun ownership, there are more gun suicides and more total suicides, more gun homicides and more total homicides, and more accidental gun deaths.

This is the first chapter in the book and provides and up-to-date and readable summary of the literature on the relationship between guns and death. It also adds to the literature by using the National Violent Death Reporting System data to show where (home or away) the shootings occurred. Suicides for all age groups and homicides for children and aging adults most often occurred in their own home.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.

6. More guns = more homicides of police

This article examines homicide rates of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) from 1996 to 2010. Differences in rates of homicides of LEOs across states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states.

This article was cited by President Obama in a speech to a police association. This article will hopefully bring police further into the camp of those pushing for sensible gun laws.

Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

by Original Quill Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:45 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Why do you put up with it?

Why do you?

I don't put up with lying politicians. That's why I'm a lefty. First, I don't believe the lies come from the left...the left has no incentive to lie. The LW represents the general welfare. It is the RW that represents special interests, where votes are thin. Look at the 2017 Tax Act...big, and permanent cuts for the rich, tiny and temporary relief for the poor. Keep in mind, the political currency is votes, not cash. Thus it is the RW that needs to deceive in order to get votes, as they fail to stand with the people.

Second, I am in the midst of an effort to cast the RW liars adrift...I’m referring to the Pacific States of America. It takes time because we want to do this peacefully--like Scotland, hold a referendum or such--and the effort is as much to convince the south that they don't want to be with us, anymore than we want to be with them. But you see, clearly, my conviction is to cast the lying south adrift and take our ship onto the Pacific.

by Lurker Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:25 pm

by Maddog Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why do you?

I don't put up with lying politicians. That's why I'm a lefty. First, I don't believe the lies come from the left...the left has no incentive to lie. The LW represents the general welfare. It is the RW that represents special interests, where votes are thin. Look at the 2017 Tax Act...big, and permanent cuts for the rich, tiny and temporary relief for the poor. Keep in mind, the political currency is votes, not cash. Thus it is the RW that needs to deceive in order to get votes, as they fail to stand with the people.

Second, I am in the midst of an effort to cast the RW liars adrift...I’m referring to the Pacific States of America. It takes time because we want to do this peacefully--like Scotland, hold a referendum or such--and the effort is as much to convince the south that they don't want to be with us, anymore than we want to be with them. But you see, clearly, my conviction is to cast the lying south adrift and take our ship onto the Pacific.

All politicians accept money to run.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:50 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Restricting law abiding citizens from having guns does not stop criminals from having guns...

Even if it were possible to remove all guns from all people, the criminals would make their own guns...

Then even if that could be prevented, they would just carry/use other things as weapons... knives/swords/axes/bats/bow&arrow/crossbows etc, and a multitude of other things that could be used as weapons...

So remove all those too... criminals will still get/make them too...!

Even if you could remove all potentiality dangerous things from all people... that would only result in all normal law abiding people being without anything potentiality dangerous... while criminals will still have every one of those things!!!

The weapon of choice will change... but the crime won't stop!!!

More "open carry"/right-wing/doomsday prepper style nonsense, care of Tommy...

With zero relevance to this particular topic at hand..

Criminals and gangsters stockpiling guns has nothing to do with school shootings and many other mass shootings of this type in the USA -- as most of the guns they use are legal firearms -- either stolen from a parent or older sibling; or else owned by themselves..

In some of the more redneck states in the US people still don't require shooters licences, with some kids being given their first gun on their 5th or 6th birthday !

What are you talking about...???

A stolen weapon is, by definition of it being stolen, not legally held/obtained!!!

by Original Quill Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:20 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't put up with lying politicians. That's why I'm a lefty. First, I don't believe the lies come from the left...the left has no incentive to lie. The LW represents the general welfare. It is the RW that represents special interests, where votes are thin. Look at the 2017 Tax Act...big, and permanent cuts for the rich, tiny and temporary relief for the poor. Keep in mind, the political currency is votes, not cash. Thus it is the RW that needs to deceive in order to get votes, as they fail to stand with the people.

Second, I am in the midst of an effort to cast the RW liars adrift...I’m referring to the Pacific States of America. It takes time because we want to do this peacefully--like Scotland, hold a referendum or such--and the effort is as much to convince the south that they don't want to be with us, anymore than we want to be with them. But you see, clearly, my conviction is to cast the lying south adrift and take our ship onto the Pacific.

All politicians accept money to run.

Only during campaign season. And, money is a negligible part of the over-all process, because it take votes, not dollars, to win. That's the great Republican/conservative dilemma. Money allows one to make noise, but noise for what? To get votes. How do they do that if they don't stand up for the people? They have to lie. The conservative money only facilitates lying.

Democrats/liberals rely on reputation, and good deeds. They are fixers...for everyone. Look at how Obamacare has won the people over. Republicans couldn't even pass repeal and replace, let alone repeal. Once people know reality (the truth), lies won't work.

by Eilzel Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge wrote:This is why the US guns laws and those pro guns are so utterly dumb

Seriously, who actually needs an assualt rifle?

Or even a gun?

You exponentially increase the risk of such events happening, through such dumb gun laws

I dont care about the legality or illegal reality of how people have guns.

You have a gun culture, mixed with relative poverty and a divide within society, is a recipe for diasaster

I dont care that you think you need to shoot your gun off hunting, to get a buzz.

Get a bow and arrow, its far more sporting and harder.

The gun is a pussy way to hunt and its hardly a challenge

If you really feel the need to get off killing, then do it the hard way in hunting. Get a knife and stalk your prey, or with a spear

Lets see how good you are then

But dont argue you need assualt rifles to hunt, it just proves you cannot hunt and choose the easy pathetic option

Those arguing for assualty rifles due to hunting are pussies. They just cannot face a real challenge hunting

And dont give me any bullshit about self defense. Its because you have gun laws, that make this a vicious cycle.

We rarely have mass shootings in the UK

Its time the US learn to restrict gun laws

Your fucking freedom to want to get a hard on shooting, is costing many innocent lives

Restricting law abiding citizens from having guns does not stop criminals from having guns...

Even if it were possible to remove all guns from all people, the criminals would make their own guns...

Then even if that could be prevented, they would just carry/use other things as weapons... knives/swords/axes/bats/bow&arrow/crossbows etc, and a multitude of other things that could be used as weapons...

So remove all those too... criminals will still get/make them too...!

Even if you could remove all potentiality dangerous things from all people... that would only result in all normal law abiding people being without anything potentiality dangerous... while criminals will still have every one of those things!!!

The weapon of choice will change... but the crime won't stop!!!

Restricting people from getting class A drugs doesn't stop criminals from getting them either.

Even if we took all class A drugs from all people, criminals would still get them.

And if not, they'd just make their own.

The drugs might change, but the crime won't stop.

Should we legalise all class A drugs, tommy?

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:11 am

Drugs were legal up until about 100 years ago you fool...!!!

Since they were made illegal, it has not stopped people getting them, just empowered criminals and networks running the supply chains of said drugs, with them making vast sums of money, and often using guns/violence as part of their operations, plus resulting in product for end user being both poor quality mixed with variety of even more harmful ingredients, as well as hugely expensive forcing many users into crime to fund their habits... as well as sucking all that money out of the regular economy... plus the huge sums spent by police in trying to tackle it all...!!!

Then if you realise that the overwhelming vast majority of gun crime IS drug related... both here in UK where guns are heavily restricted and in the US where guns are not but where it is mostly criminal drug related gun crime with illegal guns too... you start to see that it has nothing to do with restrictions of guns or not for the overwhelming vast majority of regular law abiding citizens at all...!

by Eilzel Sun Feb 18, 2018 3:31 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Drugs were legal up until about 100 years ago you fool...!!!

Since they were made illegal, it has not stopped people getting them, just empowered criminals and networks running the supply chains of said drugs, with them making vast sums of money, and often using guns/violence as part of their operations, plus resulting in product for end user being both poor quality mixed with variety of even more harmful ingredients, as well as hugely expensive forcing many users into crime to fund their habits... as well as sucking all that money out of the regular economy... plus the huge sums spent by police in trying to tackle it all...!!!

Then if you realise that the overwhelming vast majority of gun crime IS drug related... both here in UK where guns are heavily restricted and in the US where guns are not but where it is mostly criminal drug related gun crime with illegal guns too... you start to see that it has nothing to do with restrictions of guns or not for the overwhelming vast majority of regular law abiding citizens at all...!

The fact drugs were legal 100 years ago is irrelevant to my point.

If we legalised them (class A drugs) it is fairly likely more people would suffer their effects. We don't legalise them to prevent that happening. I imagine they were all criminalised in the first place for that same reason.

Criminalised or not, some criminals will get access to guns. But by criminalising them, we significantly reduce the chance of derranged idiots and lone wolf mentalists and minors causing such huge loss of life.

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:16 am

So let me get this straight.

Tommy thinks there is no point on laws

That if people illegally drive cars, we should scrap licenses then?

Is this what he is suggesting?

Never heard such a retarded argument in defending guns

As to drugs, I think they should be decriminalized

What people do with their own bodies is their buisness with drugs. Making them legal would drastically reduce crime.

Guns however are often used to murder people in the US. So stupidly saying, that there is illegal gun use, does not mean you do not have restriction on legal gun use. Its a no brainer and why the UK has little gun homicides

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:56 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

All politicians accept money to run.

Only during campaign season. And, money is a negligible part of the over-all process, because it take votes, not dollars, to win. That's the great Republican/conservative dilemma. Money allows one to make noise, but noise for what? To get votes. How do they do that if they don't stand up for the people? They have to lie. The conservative money only facilitates lying.

Democrats/liberals rely on reputation, and good deeds. They are fixers...for everyone. Look at how Obamacare has won the people over. Republicans couldn't even pass repeal and replace, let alone repeal. Once people know reality (the truth), lies won't work.

Hillary outspent Trump and still lost. Even all that Wall Street money couldn't fix her reputation.

Wink

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:57 am

Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Restricting law abiding citizens from having guns does not stop criminals from having guns...

Even if it were possible to remove all guns from all people, the criminals would make their own guns...

Then even if that could be prevented, they would just carry/use other things as weapons... knives/swords/axes/bats/bow&arrow/crossbows etc, and a multitude of other things that could be used as weapons...

So remove all those too... criminals will still get/make them too...!

Even if you could remove all potentiality dangerous things from all people... that would only result in all normal law abiding people being without anything potentiality dangerous... while criminals will still have every one of those things!!!

The weapon of choice will change... but the crime won't stop!!!

Restricting people from getting class A drugs doesn't stop criminals from getting them either.

Even if we took all class A drugs from all people, criminals would still get them.

And if not, they'd just make their own.

The drugs might change, but the crime won't stop.

Should we legalise all class A drugs, tommy?

Yes.

by Eilzel Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:45 am

Maddog wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Restricting law abiding citizens from having guns does not stop criminals from having guns...

Even if it were possible to remove all guns from all people, the criminals would make their own guns...

Then even if that could be prevented, they would just carry/use other things as weapons... knives/swords/axes/bats/bow&arrow/crossbows etc, and a multitude of other things that could be used as weapons...

So remove all those too... criminals will still get/make them too...!

Even if you could remove all potentiality dangerous things from all people... that would only result in all normal law abiding people being without anything potentiality dangerous... while criminals will still have every one of those things!!!

The weapon of choice will change... but the crime won't stop!!!

Restricting people from getting class A drugs doesn't stop criminals from getting them either.

Even if we took all class A drugs from all people, criminals would still get them.

And if not, they'd just make their own.

The drugs might change, but the crime won't stop.

Should we legalise all class A drugs, tommy?

Yes.

I don't doubt you think that. You'd legalise everything and have war on the streets as long as you were free to build a fortress and own nuclear warheads lol

Tommy, however, I do not think would legalise class A drugs on the same grounds he supports the right to own a gun.

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:21 am

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes.

I don't doubt you think that. You'd legalise everything and have war on the streets as long as you were free to build a fortress and own nuclear warheads lol

Tommy, however, I do not think would legalise class A drugs on the same grounds he supports the right to own a gun.

How many gun deaths are related to drug gangs?

Its a no brainer to decriminalize and even more so legallize many drugs. Making them safer and the streets safer. As you would be taking away from the gangs their resource, denying them their income.

Hence why I think the US needs far stricter gun laws, but also to realise, that the war on drugs will never be won. Where in fact, it continues to cause many gun deaths.

If people are able to buy drugs legally, you reduce a risk of gun deaths. It would also no doubt reduce crime and stop needlessly sending people to prison for drug use. This would also hugely free up Police time, for them to concentrate more on violent crimes.

It should also be up to people what they do with their own bodies, not any governement.

by Eilzel Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:14 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes.

I don't doubt you think that. You'd legalise everything and have war on the streets as long as you were free to build a fortress and own nuclear warheads lol

Tommy, however, I do not think would legalise class A drugs on the same grounds he supports the right to own a gun.

How many gun deaths are related to drug gangs?

Its a no brainer to decriminalize and even more so legallize many drugs. Making them safer and the streets safer. As you would be taking away from the gangs their resource, denying them their income.

Hence why I think the US needs far stricter gun laws, but also to realise, that the war on drugs will never be won. Where in fact, it continues to cause many gun deaths.

If people are able to buy drugs legally, you reduce a risk of gun deaths. It would also no doubt reduce crime and stop needlessly sending people to prison for drug use. This would also hugely free up Police time, for them to concentrate more on violent crimes.

It should also be up to people what they do with their own bodies, not any governement.

To be fair, I'm not arguing either for or against decriminalising drugs (though I would do so with some, certainly not all). The analogy was simply to point out the flawed "we should legalise it because people do it anyway" line.

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:14 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Didge wrote:

How many gun deaths are related to drug gangs?

Its a no brainer to decriminalize and even more so legallize many drugs. Making them safer and the streets safer. As you would be taking away from the gangs their resource, denying them their income.

Hence why I think the US needs far stricter gun laws, but also to realise, that the war on drugs will never be won. Where in fact, it continues to cause many gun deaths.

If people are able to buy drugs legally, you reduce a risk of gun deaths. It would also no doubt reduce crime and stop needlessly sending people to prison for drug use. This would also hugely free up Police time, for them to concentrate more on violent crimes.

It should also be up to people what they do with their own bodies, not any governement.

To be fair, I'm not arguing either for or against decriminalising drugs (though I would do so with some, certainly not all). The analogy was simply to point out the flawed "we should legalise it because people do it anyway" line.

Fair enough mate

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 4:21 pm

Eilzel wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes.

I don't doubt you think that. You'd legalise everything and have war on the streets as long as you were free to build a fortress and own nuclear warheads lol

Tommy, however, I do not think would legalise class A drugs on the same grounds he supports the right to own a gun.

I have a maniacal goal. Become leader of the world and then leave you alone. Wink

by Original Quill Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:03 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Only during campaign season. And, money is a negligible part of the over-all process, because it take votes, not dollars, to win. That's the great Republican/conservative dilemma. Money allows one to make noise, but noise for what? To get votes. How do they do that if they don't stand up for the people? They have to lie. The conservative money only facilitates lying.

Democrats/liberals rely on reputation, and good deeds. They are fixers...for everyone. Look at how Obamacare has won the people over. Republicans couldn't even pass repeal and replace, let alone repeal. Once people know reality (the truth), lies won't work.

Hillary outspent Trump and still lost. Even all that Wall Street money couldn't fix her reputation.

You're avoiding the big question, defecting down the rabbit hole of election finance. The issue is interests represented, not just during elections, but in the overall philosophy, and everyday. Republicans and conservatives have come to represent the philosophy of wealth and privilege...special interests.

This puts them at a disadvantage. Wealth and privilege are sparser populations. Wealth and privilege, by the very nature of them, reduces the number of physical people represented.

Fewer people mean less votes. Ironically, politics is one of the few endeavors that go, not by market theory, where money is paramount, but by equality of individual. Each person, regardless of wealth, has an individual vote. If one chooses to represent the privileged and wealthy, one consciously chooses to have fewer votes. I think we've discussed this: this is why conservative elements have finely tuned the art of lying.

Money for elections is ancillary. Politicians may need cash every two years (for reps.) and every six years (for senators), but the real Republican/conservative philosophy was seen in the recent Tax Act, where the average guy got a tax break of, oh say, $15/per paycheck, while the wealthy and privileged got breaks in the $-billions.

Now let's stick with the Tax Act. Why did they give any money to the unwashed ones? It was, indirectly, to change the narrative (why Republicans lie). Instead of revealing themselves as blatant money grubbers, they pretended to be egalitarians, dropping crumbs for the birds and mice. Not too much...they almost cancelled that part of it, because it was raising the deficit (ie, not the tax cut for the rich, just the one for the little guys).

Red, you yourself have participated in this redrafting of the narrative. Do I not remember you debating with Cass, alleging that the tax cut for the unclean was highly significant? As I recall, she put you to shame with facts and figures. The tax cut for the little man is a sham...a teaser, as a predicate for false argument. And keep in mind, it goes away in a few seasons, while the Tax Cut for the rich is forever. (Hmm..why is that?)

This is just a small part of their overall effort. While the one hand of the Republican/conservative gives to the rich and privileged, the other tries to take away programs for the unprivileged: healthcare, child lunches, social security, SSDI, money for treatment of the mentally ill, even fire, police, prisons and other nuisances (for them). The one love they have is the military, presumably to keep the nasty foreigners in their place (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

Campaign funds...pshaw. Take in the big picture.

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Hillary outspent Trump and still lost. Even all that Wall Street money couldn't fix her reputation.

You're avoiding the big question, defecting down the rabbit hole of election finance. The issue is interests represented, not just during elections, but in the overall philosophy, and everyday. Republicans and conservatives have come to represent the philosophy of wealth and privilege...special interests.

This puts them at a disadvantage. Wealth and privilege are sparser populations. Wealth and privilege, by the very nature of them, reduces the number of physical people represented.

Fewer people mean less votes. Ironically, politics is one of the few endeavors that go, not by market theory, where money is paramount, but by equality of individual. Each person, regardless of wealth, has an individual vote. If one chooses to represent the privileged and wealthy, one consciously chooses to have fewer votes. I think we've discussed this: this is why conservative elements have finely tuned the art of lying.

Money for elections is ancillary. Politicians may need cash every two years (for reps.) and every six years (for senators), but the real Republican/conservative philosophy was seen in the recent Tax Act, where the average guy got a tax break of, oh say, $15/per paycheck, while the wealthy and privileged got breaks in the $-billions.

Now let's stick with the Tax Act. Why did they give any money to the unwashed ones? It was, indirectly, to change the narrative (why Republicans lie). Instead of revealing themselves as blatant money grubbers, they pretended to be egalitarians, dropping crumbs for the birds and mice. Not too much...they almost cancelled that part of it, because it was raising the deficit (ie, not the tax cut for the rich, just the one for the little guys).

Red, you yourself have participated in this redrafting of the narrative. Do I not remember you debating with Cass, alleging that the tax cut for the unclean was highly significant? As I recall, she put you to shame with facts and figures. The tax cut for the little man is a sham...a teaser, as a predicate for false argument. And keep in mind, it goes away in a few seasons, while the Tax Cut for the rich is forever. (Hmm..why is that?)

This is just a small part of their overall effort. While the one hand of the Republican/conservative gives to the rich and privileged, the other tries to take away programs for the unprivileged: healthcare, child lunches, social security, SSDI, money for treatment of the mentally ill, even fire, police, prisons and other nuisances (for them). The one love they have is the military, presumably to keep the unclean in their place (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

Campaign funds...pshaw. Take in the big picture.

Here's the big picture. All candidates take huge sums of money.

A long rambling post of nonsense doesn't change that fact. Wink

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:24 pm

The fact that some criminals use guns to harm others, is not an argument to remove guns from responsible law abiding citizens... as the criminals will still get guns, or will just use other tools as weapons...

Then what...?

Remove knives from responsible law abiding citizens...?

Again leaving only the criminals with knives as well as guns...?

Just like lowering the drink drive limit to half a pint does not stop the piss head driving after 10 pints... all it does is penalises responsible law abiding citizens...!

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:30 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
The fact that some criminals use guns to harm others, is not an argument to remove guns from responsible law abiding citizens... as the criminals will still get guns, or will just use other tools as weapons...

Then what...?

Remove knives from responsible law abiding citizens...?

Again leaving only the criminals with knives as well as guns...?

Just like lowering the drink drive limit to half a pint does not stop the piss head driving after 10 pints... all it does is penalises responsible law abiding citizens...!

So we are back to relaxing the laws on people obtaining any licence.

To Tommy, "hell if its illigal, there is no point having strict laws"

So Tommy is right, that lowering the drink drive limit is not going to help prevent auto accidents. Stringent tests for licences will.

How to in three simple sentences make Tommy look a dick

by Original Quill Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:36 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You're avoiding the big question, defecting down the rabbit hole of election finance. The issue is interests represented, not just during elections, but in the overall philosophy, and everyday. Republicans and conservatives have come to represent the philosophy of wealth and privilege...special interests.

This puts them at a disadvantage. Wealth and privilege are sparser populations. Wealth and privilege, by the very nature of them, reduces the number of physical people represented.

Fewer people mean less votes. Ironically, politics is one of the few endeavors that go, not by market theory, where money is paramount, but by equality of individual. Each person, regardless of wealth, has an individual vote. If one chooses to represent the privileged and wealthy, one consciously chooses to have fewer votes. I think we've discussed this: this is why conservative elements have finely tuned the art of lying.

Money for elections is ancillary. Politicians may need cash every two years (for reps.) and every six years (for senators), but the real Republican/conservative philosophy was seen in the recent Tax Act, where the average guy got a tax break of, oh say, $15/per paycheck, while the wealthy and privileged got breaks in the $-billions.

Now let's stick with the Tax Act. Why did they give any money to the unwashed ones? It was, indirectly, to change the narrative (why Republicans lie). Instead of revealing themselves as blatant money grubbers, they pretended to be egalitarians, dropping crumbs for the birds and mice. Not too much...they almost cancelled that part of it, because it was raising the deficit (ie, not the tax cut for the rich, just the one for the little guys).

Red, you yourself have participated in this redrafting of the narrative. Do I not remember you debating with Cass, alleging that the tax cut for the unclean was highly significant? As I recall, she put you to shame with facts and figures. The tax cut for the little man is a sham...a teaser, as a predicate for false argument. And keep in mind, it goes away in a few seasons, while the Tax Cut for the rich is forever. (Hmm..why is that?)

This is just a small part of their overall effort. While the one hand of the Republican/conservative gives to the rich and privileged, the other tries to take away programs for the unprivileged: healthcare, child lunches, social security, SSDI, money for treatment of the mentally ill, even fire, police, prisons and other nuisances (for them). The one love they have is the military, presumably to keep the unclean in their place (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, etc.).

Campaign funds...pshaw. Take in the big picture.

Here's the big picture. All candidates take huge sums of money.

Again, misses the point. Why don't you want to talk about the philosophies of the two parties? Afraid you'll lose? Being wrong, is one of the most important tools in learning. Give it a try.

Maddog wrote:A long rambling post of nonsense doesn't change that fact.

Yes, they say Trump doesn't like to read, either. They say his eyes glaze over, and his head nods off, mind wanders, etc. Not to say you have the same policy predilections that he has, but you do have the same attention deficit disorder.

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:49 pm

Didge... you may as well be arguing that just because 1 person deliberately drives a car through a crowd of people, killing and maiming dozens of them... that there should be a call for removing vehicles from the rest of the population of responsible law abiding citizens...!?

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Didge... you may as well be arguing that just because 1 person deliberately drives a car through a crowd of people, killing and maiming dozens of them... that there should be a call for removing vehicles from the rest of the population of responsible law abiding citizens...!?

Really and where would I?

A car was never created as an instrument of death.

The gun was

The car was invented to help people get from A to B.

Sadly hateful people like yourself, capitalized on the deadly effects this could have. When used as a means as a weapon.

Hence stringent driving licence laws

You keep making my points more solid with every reply Tommy

Cool

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:32 pm

Responsible law abiding citizens don't have guns for reasons of wanting to go out and carry out a mass shooting attack... the have them for self defence/hunting/sport and recreational target practice fun at shooting ranges...

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Responsible law abiding citizens don't have guns for reasons of wanting to go out and carry out a mass shooting attack... the have them for self defence/hunting/sport and recreational target practice fun at shooting ranges...

I am sure they have reasons, but do they supercede those of the constant victims of gun crime?

I see Tommy keeps running away from all my points

Cool

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Here's the big picture. All candidates take huge sums of money.

Again, misses the point. Why don't you want to talk about the philosophies of the two parties? Afraid you'll lose? Being wrong, is one of the most important tools in learning. Give it a try.

Maddog wrote:A long rambling post of nonsense doesn't change that fact.

Yes, they say Trump doesn't like to read, either. They say his eyes glaze over, and his head nods off, mind wanders, etc. Not to say you have the same policy predilections that he has, but you do have the same attention deficit disorder.

You have a point?

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:41 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Responsible law abiding citizens don't have guns for reasons of wanting to go out and carry out a mass shooting attack... the have them for self defence/hunting/sport and recreational target practice fun at shooting ranges...

I am sure they have reasons, but do they supercede those of the constant victims of gun crime?

I see Tommy keeps running away from all my points

That's the question isn't it? How important is it for people to have the means to defend themselves.

Is it worth letting people have a tool that makes that easier knowing some will abuse that right and use it for evil?

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:43 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

I am sure they have reasons, but do they supercede those of the constant victims of gun crime?

I see Tommy keeps running away from all my points

That's the question isn't it? How important is it for people to have the means to defend themselves.

Is it worth letting people have a tool that makes that easier knowing some will abuse that right and use it for evil?

You simple are not asking yourself the right questions

Without that tool, who could use it in anger?

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:50 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

That's the question isn't it? How important is it for people to have the means to defend themselves.

Is it worth letting people have a tool that makes that easier knowing some will abuse that right and use it for evil?

You simple are not asking yourself the right questions

Without that tool, who could use it in anger?

Who could use it to protect their loved ones?

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:52 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

You simple are not asking yourself the right questions

Without that tool, who could use it in anger?

Who could use it to protect their loved ones?

Can you use a gun to protect against cancer?

by Cass Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:03 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Who could use it to protect their loved ones?

Can you use a gun to protect against cancer?

Nope!

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:04 pm

Knives and baseball bats are freely available to all... should they be removed from the 99.9% of responsible law abiding citizens just because some criminals use them to murder others...?

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:02 pm

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Who could use it to protect their loved ones?

Can you use a gun to protect against cancer?

Nope. And chemo isn't a good tool against a rapist.

by Maddog Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:04 pm

Didge, do you find anything odd about your avi? Wink

by Tommy Monk Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:17 pm

Maddog wrote:Didge, do you find anything odd about your avi?

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:38 pm

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Can you use a gun to protect against cancer?

Nope. And chemo isn't a good tool against a rapist.

Wow, that has to be the most idiotic reply yet

Chemo is the best chance of survival for many people

Fucking idiot

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:38 pm

Maddog wrote:Didge, do you find anything odd about your avi?

No, why do you?

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Knives and baseball bats are freely available to all... should they be removed from the 99.9% of responsible law abiding citizens just because some criminals use them to murder others...?

Are knives freely available to all?

How many homicides by baseball bats?

And mass school killings due to baseball bats?

How long have you been a complete idiot?

So because we have relativeley low gun deaths, you think we should relax gun laws based of knife deaths?

Is that your argument?

Seriously?

Fucking retard

by Guest Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:15 pm

Cass wrote:
Didge wrote:

Can you use a gun to protect against cancer?

Nope!

Exactly Cass, but the point has gone over the head of the simpletons.

by Eilzel Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:40 pm

The bat and knife examples are pretty useless too since it is significantly harder to commit murder on a large scale with either, once you kill once it is easier for others to tackle them or run away.

A gun is different. Plus, by making them freely available they are easy to follow into the hands of loons.

by Maddog Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:00 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:Didge, do you find anything odd about your avi?

No, why do you?

It would suggest that an armed individual might not be someone you want to mess with.

by Maddog Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:01 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Nope. And chemo isn't a good tool against a rapist.

Wow, that has to be the most idiotic reply yet

Chemo is the best chance of survival for many people

Fucking idiot

Not against a rapist. Wink

by Guest Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:02 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

No, why do you?

It would suggest that an armed individual might not be someone you want to mess with.

Or its just a sign.

by Guest Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:03 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Wow, that has to be the most idiotic reply yet

Chemo is the best chance of survival for many people

Fucking idiot

Not against a rapist.

Maybe you can tell that to the 2 million German women raped by Russian men with guns in the last months of WW2.

Or the millions of Russian, Polish and Jewish women raped and shot by Germans with guns during WW2

by Maddog Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:09 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Not against a rapist.

Maybe you can tell that to the 2 million German women raped by Russia men with guns in the last months of WW2.

Or the millions of Russian, Polish and Jewish women raped and shot by Germans with guns during WW2

Did those women have arms?

Are their invading armies running loose in America right now?

Speaking of that, Kurdish women seem to be handling weapons quite well against men that mean them harm. Smile

by Guest Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:11 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Maybe you can tell that to the 2 million German women raped by Russia men with guns in the last months of WW2.

Or the millions of Russian, Polish and Jewish women raped and shot by Germans with guns during WW2

Did those women have arms?

Are their invading armies running loose in America right now?

Speaking of that, Kurdish women seem to be handling weapons quite well against men that mean them harm.

You think its a joke when it comes to rape and the fact millions of women were raped due to the fact men did have guns?

wow

There is certainly armed extremist militias in the US

So your argument for guns, is based on the fact people need guns in a war zone to defend themselves against where they and their daughters are being taken and sold as sex slaves?

Seriously?

Did you finish high school education?

by Tommy Monk Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:14 am

Eilzel wrote:The bat and knife examples are pretty useless too since it is significantly harder to commit murder on a large scale with either, once you kill once it is easier for others to tackle them or run away.

A gun is different. Plus, by making them freely available they are easy to follow into the hands of loons.

Your class A drugs comparison was worse...

My vehicle comparison was better...

If a loon can't get a gun... they could easily get a vehicle...

So by your logic, both should be removed from responsible law abiding citizens...?

by Guest Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:15 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Eilzel wrote:The bat and knife examples are pretty useless too since it is significantly harder to commit murder on a large scale with either, once you kill once it is easier for others to tackle them or run away.

A gun is different. Plus, by making them freely available they are easy to follow into the hands of loons.

Your class A drugs comparison was worse...

My vehicle comparison was better...

If a loon can't get a gun... they could easily get a vehicle...

So by your logic, both should be removed from responsible law abiding citizens...?

Even more idiocy

So if both are wrong in being used to kill, how does that mean we should then relax laws on either?

Take your time dummy

by Sponsored content