Southern anger takes 8 more lives

First topic message reminder :

Washington Post wrote:Suspect charged with eight counts of murder in killings at Atlanta-area spas, authorities say

By Paulina Firozi, Mark Berman, Meryl Kornfield, Timothy Bella, Keith McMillan and Hannah Knowles

March 17, 2021 at 8:45 p.m. PDT

The 21-year-old suspect in shootings at three Atlanta-area spas has been charged with eight counts of murder and homicide and one count of aggravated assault, police said Wednesday.

Robert Aaron Long was charged with four counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault in the attacks in Cherokee County, according to the sheriff’s office there. The Atlanta police said later Wednesday afternoon that he was also charged with four counts of homicide in the killings in that city.

Six Asian women died in the attacks on Tuesday, prompting widespread concern that the killings could be the latest in a surge of hate crimes against Asian Americans.

Here’s what to know:

Long told investigators that he has a “sexual addiction,” authorities say, and that the spas were “a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.” Police added that it was too early to be certain that the slayings were not racially motivated.

Long was reportedly on his way to Florida to carry out additional shootings, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D) said.

Police identified the four victims killed in Cherokee County and added that a fifth suffered wounds that are not life-threatening. Delaina Yaun was a well-liked Waffle House employee who relatives and friends say was killed while on a date night.

Vice President Harris called the shootings “tragic” and expressed condolences to the families of the eight people killed. President Biden also said he was “very concerned” about the shootings.

While many Democrats were quick to condemn the shooting and link it to Trump’s rhetoric, Republicans remained mostly quiet.

Asian American leaders are warning that a deepening geopolitical confrontation between the United States and China is contributing to the heightened suspicion, prejudice and violence against their communities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/17/atlanta-spa-shootings-live-updates/

According to his confession, the shooter wasn't targeting Asians.  It was not a racial thing, this time.  It was just a little sex-o-holic thing, that he felt he could eliminate if he...well, grabbed a gun and starting killing everyone associated:

Washington Post wrote:“The shooter said it wasn’t racially motivated, but on the other hand, he’s going specifically to these spas where Asian women work precisely to serve the sexual fantasies of white males,” David Palumbo-Liu, a Stanford professor and author of “Asian/American: Historical Crossings of a Racial Frontier,” said in an interview.

It's interesting, from an apophenia (the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between seemingly unrelated things) standpoint.  It wasn't Asians, it wasn't particularly women...it was just those places in which he chose to play.

But what's interesting is his answer.  Once again, we see the south's solution to every problem.  Do they think about it?  Consult with their pastor?  Perhaps seek a doctor?  Consider the moral implications?  Worry about the humanism involved?



Nup...once again, a southerner follows southern instincts, and goes directly to his gun, and then starts shooting the fook out of the problem!  Got a problem...get angry.  Need a solution...grab your gun.

Violence and killing are ingrained parts of the southern psyche.  It's not funny.  These people are tetched.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-04/what-mitch-landrieu-learned-about-southern-racism

Did he find it better or worse than 30 years ago?

Oh its better in some ways sure i don't deny that but its still part of the culture that's my point a undercurrent if you will

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

irrelevant and whataboutisums a way to distract from the roots of the violence that stem from inequality and racism that has its roots in the south deep roots  

Huh? Actual violence is irrelevant in measuring violence?

I guess rape statistics are irrelevant in determining levels of rape.

Again

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Did he find it better or worse than 30 years ago?

Oh its better in some ways sure i don't deny that but its still part of the culture that's my point a undercurrent if you will

Did he take a tour of the North too? Or is racism gone there.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
irrelevant and whataboutisums a way to distract from the roots of the violence that stem from inequality and racism that has its roots in the south deep roots  

Huh? Actual violence is irrelevant in measuring violence?

I guess rape statistics are irrelevant in determining levels of rape.

Again

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

see there you go with the whataboutisums
The roots of the violence is the legacy of racism and inequality that's just a fact like it or not
And although many country's in the west face problems with racism and inequality they pale in comparison to americas

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Oh its better in some ways sure i don't deny that but its still part of the culture that's my point a undercurrent if you will

Did he take a tour of the North too?  Or is racism gone there.  

racism is everywhere you know that MD its just more ....blatant in the south it seems

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Did he take a tour of the North too?  Or is racism gone there.  

racism is everywhere you know that MD  its just more ....blatant in the south it seems  

It seems to those with a bias.

Do you really think Italians in Cleveland don't have a long history of "issues' with the black community.

And vice versa?

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Huh? Actual violence is irrelevant in measuring violence?

I guess rape statistics are irrelevant in determining levels of rape.

Again

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

see there you go with the whataboutisums
The roots of the violence is the legacy of racism and inequality that's just a fact like it or not
And although many country's in the west face problems  with racism and inequality they pale in comparison to americas

It's not whataboutism.

We are talking about violence.

Why is Detroit the most violent city?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
racism is everywhere you know that MD  its just more ....blatant in the south it seems  

It seems to those with a bias.  

Do you really think Italians in Cleveland don't have a long history of "issues' with the black community.  

And vice versa?

I have no bias ,i am not American or black.It affects me in know way whatsoever

so what bias do you ascribe to me ?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
see there you go with the whataboutisums
The roots of the violence is the legacy of racism and inequality that's just a fact like it or not
And although many country's in the west face problems  with racism and inequality they pale in comparison to americas

It's not whataboutism.  

We are talking about violence.

Why is Detroit the most violent city?

my mistake i though Detroit was in north America not the south as is the subject of the OP

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not whataboutism.  

We are talking about violence.

Why is Detroit the most violent city?

my mistake i though Detroit was in north America not the south as is the subject of the OP

It's in the north and the most violent.

How could that happen?

Yes this is 8 years old but if you can cite more recent Opinions i will read it

Why The South Is More Violent Than The Rest Of America
https://www.businessinsider.com/south-has-more-violent-crime-fbi-statistics-show-2013-9?r=US&IR=T

Violence and killing are ingrained parts of the southern psyche. It's not funny. These people are tetched

I guess it's ingrained in Detroit too.

And Baltimore.

And St Louis,

And Cleveland

And Compton.


I think my work is done here for awhile.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
my mistake i though Detroit was in north America not the south as is the subject of the OP

It's in the north and the most violent.

How could that happen?

i know where it is....i was being sarcastic .....(a Scottish trait)

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
irrelevant and whataboutisums a way to distract from the roots of the violence that stem from inequality and racism that has its roots in the south deep roots

Huh? Actual violence is irrelevant in measuring violence?

I guess rape statistics are irrelevant in determining levels of rape.

Again

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

Did IQ’s just drop? The essence of whataboutism is to change the subject—get off the subject that is embarrassing you. Change the subject from, say, the origins of violence, to a comparison of cities…whatabout northern cities.

You don’t give a sheet about understanding violence. You just want to dodge the indictment. Southerners!

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Is he some ex-army guy? They are usually close shaven, what's with the poncy hairstyle?

Is he a Christian fundamentalist?

Is a massage parlour really just a polite term for brothel?

Were those poor girls trafficked?

Soooo many questions, so little time.


Sad story. RIP.

Yeah, they are places for sex.

No they are not trafficked.

People have fucking purple Mohawks too. Not sure what hair has to do with anything.
He had been treated for sex addiction. Whether that's a real thing is sorta a conversation over here now.

Most shooters want to look like hard men.
And that includes the haircut. Not often you see a shooter with a woke-looking metrosexual hairstyle.

Some commit their massacres whilst wearing military type uniforms. Their websites usually show them dressed in full paramilitary gear & tribal insignia, waving flags.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, they are places for sex.

No they are not trafficked.

People have fucking purple Mohawks too. Not sure what hair has to do with anything.
He had been treated for sex addiction. Whether that's a real thing is sorta a conversation over here now.

Most shooters want to look like hard men.
And that includes the haircut. Not often you see a shooter with a woke-looking metrosexual hairstyle.

Some commit their massacres whilst wearing military type uniforms. Their websites usually show them dressed in paramilitary gear, tribal insignia and waving flags.

I have no problem with the idea of a well-regulated militia however feel the Americans who quote this as justification Aka the constitution have corrupted the intention the founding fathers had when putting this in there constitution

Quote Alexander Hamilton

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788

most if not all western  country have a form of militia ie a well trained group of civilians to be used in times of need
we had the home guard during the war and even today we have well trained civilians who come from the  TA or the RNR or air force reserve

America has its own "well trained" equivalents but unlike other country's they also have the wanabe contingent who use the vauge "well-regulated militia " part of the constitution to claim the right to wander around armed to the teeth to fight against some imaginary oppressive government that is far to often just laws they don't like because they claim it infringes there Freedoms

but what they really want is the freedom to do what they like without fear of lawful sanctions regardless of what the majority want and hark back to the days when America was the frontier country of the 1700s

I am sorry to say the constitution as written is not fit for purpose or modern society  had the founding farther envisioned the types of weapons we have today i have no doubt they would have been more restrictions placed on weapons and who could own them and what type
of weapons you could own

Korben wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Most shooters want to look like hard men.
And that includes the haircut. Not often you see a shooter with a woke-looking metrosexual hairstyle.

Some commit their massacres whilst wearing military type uniforms. Their websites usually show them dressed in paramilitary gear, tribal insignia and waving flags.

I have no problem with the idea of a well-regulated militia however feel the Americans who quote this as justification Aka the constitution have corrupted the intention the founding fathers had when putting this in there constitution

Quote Alexander Hamilton

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788

most if not all western  country have a form of militia ie a well trained group of civilians to be used in times of need
we had the home guard during the war and even today we have well trained civilians who come from the  TA or the RNR or air force reserve

America has its own "well trained" equivalents but unlike other country's they also have the wanabe contingent who use the vauge "well-regulated militia " part of the constitution to claim the right to wander around armed to the teeth to fight against some imaginary oppressive government that is far to often just laws they don't like because they claim it infringes there Freedoms

but what they really want is the freedom to do what they like without fear of lawful sanctions regardless of what the majority want and hark back to the days when America was the frontier country of the 1700s

I am sorry to say the constitution as written is not fit for purpose or modern society  had the founding farther envisioned the types of weapons we have today i have no doubt they would have been more restrictions placed on weapons and who could own them and what type
of weapons you could own

There were privately owned cannons when it was written. They were familiar with some pretty deadly weapons and probably knew (they were pretty intelligent) that weapon technology would continue to advance.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Huh? Actual violence is irrelevant in measuring violence?

I guess rape statistics are irrelevant in determining levels of rape.

Again

Where is the most violent city in the US?

The top 10?

Did IQ’s just drop?  The essence of whataboutism is to change the subject—get off the subject that is embarrassing you.  Change the subject from, say, the origins of violence, to a comparison of cities…whatabout northern cities.

You don’t give a sheet about understanding violence.  You just want to dodge the indictment.  Southerners!

It's not whataboutism. You brought regions of the country into the discussion.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:

I have no problem with the idea of a well-regulated militia however feel the Americans who quote this as justification Aka the constitution have corrupted the intention the founding fathers had when putting this in there constitution

Quote Alexander Hamilton

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788

most if not all western  country have a form of militia ie a well trained group of civilians to be used in times of need
we had the home guard during the war and even today we have well trained civilians who come from the  TA or the RNR or air force reserve

America has its own "well trained" equivalents but unlike other country's they also have the wanabe contingent who use the vauge "well-regulated militia " part of the constitution to claim the right to wander around armed to the teeth to fight against some imaginary oppressive government that is far to often just laws they don't like because they claim it infringes there Freedoms

but what they really want is the freedom to do what they like without fear of lawful sanctions regardless of what the majority want and hark back to the days when America was the frontier country of the 1700s

I am sorry to say the constitution as written is not fit for purpose or modern society  had the founding farther envisioned the types of weapons we have today i have no doubt they would have been more restrictions placed on weapons and who could own them and what type
of weapons you could own

There were privately owned cannons when it was written.  They were familiar with some pretty deadly weapons and probably knew (they were pretty intelligent) that weapon technology would continue to advance.  

yes that is true They were familiar with some pretty deadly weapons but they would not have been able to conceive the type of weapons that we now and there capability

today because of science and indeed science fiction we can conceive of some pretty devastating weapons but my sense is even that that is limited to our current technological understanding and the same would be true 250 years ago more so in fact

And while yea they had cannons they where slow to load and pretty inaccurate and difficult to transport even multi bullet guns such as the Gatling gun invented in 1861 where bulky and relatively difficult to transport unlike modern weapons

The problem IMO is the right to bear arms has been expanded to include weapons designed to kill as many "people" as possible in the shortest time they are weapons of war not protection or hunting

It should not be ignored that Mass shootings are a uniquely American phenomenon with a few exceptions But as i have said before and i stand by it seems some Americans think guns is the answer to every problem and not the problem its self , be that your neighbours having a sign on there lawn you don't like to what is perceived over reach of legislation

Unfortunately the gun debate in America is often framed as a stand-off between two immutable positions with little potential to move ahead with meaningful legislative reform
One side believes that guns are a menace to public safety, while the other believes that they are an essential tool of self-preservation. One side cannot fathom why more gun control legislation has not been passed in the wake of a disturbing rise in mass shootings in the US The other, backed by the Constitutional right to bear arms and the powerful lobby of the NRA fears the slippery slope of legislative change and refuses to yield an inch while threatening, i will give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands

so in the end nothing is done despite the deaths caused

Do you think they could have predicted the internet?

These were smart men who were familiar with firearms. People were already working on weapons that could fire multiple rounds quickly. In fact nothing that the American public can legally own has technology less than 100 years old.

Maddog wrote:Do you think they could have predicted the internet?  

These were smart men who were familiar with firearms.  People were already working on weapons that could fire multiple rounds quickly.  In fact nothing that the American public can legally own has technology less than 100 years old.

Of course they couldn't have predicted the internet in the form that it has become hell they had only just come to grips with electricity in its most basic form
2700–2300 BC saw the first appearance of the Sumerian abacus a basic manual computer do you think they could imagine a machine that could do millions of calculations a second ?

but a can imagine a lot of things from warp drive to time travel imagining and doing are not the same thing

legislating for something you imagine is not something we do other wise they would be laws around time travel and unicorns

America land of the free to shoot a child over spilt water

A 6-year-old Texas girl was fatally shot by a relative following an argument over spilled water, according to the NBC affiliate in Houston.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6-year-old-girl-fatally-shot-relative-over-spilled-water-n1261660?fbclid=IwAR1NueTP8HqEmSd_OaNwjsiXysFO-ptQkqnaclFRZXHdCnIoOIxV3YXHB3w

come on what does it take to do something ?? other than bullshit platitudes

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Did IQ’s just drop?  The essence of whataboutism is to change the subject—get off the subject that is embarrassing you.  Change the subject from, say, the origins of violence, to a comparison of cities…whatabout northern cities.

You don’t give a sheet about understanding violence.  You just want to dodge the indictment.  Southerners!

It's not whataboutism. You brought regions of the country into the discussion.

Yes, and regions are relevant due to ideologies.

You brought cities into the discussion, rendering demographics meaningless.  Cities have sociological problems altogether different.  At least regions have to do with ideological origins.

Face it, your a fookin' controversy coward...you run away from issues more that anyone we've ever had here.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not whataboutism. You brought regions of the country into the discussion.

Yes, and regions are relevant due to ideologies.

You brought cities into the discussion, rendering demographics meaningless.  Cities have sociological problems altogether different.  At least regions have to do with ideological origins.

Face it, your a fookin' controversy coward...you run away from issues more that anyone we've ever had here.

So regions don't matter, being in cities does.

Korben wrote:America land of the free to shoot a child over spilt water

A 6-year-old Texas girl was fatally shot by a relative following an argument over spilled water, according to the NBC affiliate in Houston.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6-year-old-girl-fatally-shot-relative-over-spilled-water-n1261660?fbclid=IwAR1NueTP8HqEmSd_OaNwjsiXysFO-ptQkqnaclFRZXHdCnIoOIxV3YXHB3w

come on what does it take to do something ?? other than bullshit platitudes

What's it going to take to keep relatives from killing their children?

Beats the hell out of me?

You're so obsessed with the weapon, that you're skipping right over the part where a relative killed a 6 year old girl.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:America land of the free to shoot a child over spilt water

A 6-year-old Texas girl was fatally shot by a relative following an argument over spilled water, according to the NBC affiliate in Houston.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/6-year-old-girl-fatally-shot-relative-over-spilled-water-n1261660?fbclid=IwAR1NueTP8HqEmSd_OaNwjsiXysFO-ptQkqnaclFRZXHdCnIoOIxV3YXHB3w

come on what does it take to do something ?? other than bullshit platitudes

What's it going to take to keep relatives from killing their children?

Beats the hell out of me?

You're  so obsessed with the weapon, that you're skipping right over the part where a relative killed a 6 year old girl.

don't think i am skipping over it Md ,the access to a weapon is a big part of the problem its the American "go to"
to solve problems ...or seems that way to a "outsider"

The issues of gun violence in America will never be solved if people keep giving excuses why the access to guns is not the problem or claim more guns is the solution

Korben wrote:

JulesV wrote:

Most shooters want to look like hard men.
And that includes the haircut. Not often you see a shooter with a woke-looking metrosexual hairstyle.

Some commit their massacres whilst wearing military type uniforms. Their websites usually show them dressed in paramilitary gear, tribal insignia and waving flags.

I have no problem with the idea of a well-regulated militia however feel the Americans who quote this as justification Aka the constitution have corrupted the intention the founding fathers had when putting this in there constitution

Quote Alexander Hamilton

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788

most if not all western  country have a form of militia ie a well trained group of civilians to be used in times of need
we had the home guard during the war and even today we have well trained civilians who come from the  TA or the RNR or air force reserve

America has its own "well trained" equivalents but unlike other country's they also have the wanabe contingent who use the vauge "well-regulated militia " part of the constitution to claim the right to wander around armed to the teeth to fight against some imaginary oppressive government that is far to often just laws they don't like because they claim it infringes there Freedoms

but what they really want is the freedom to do what they like without fear of lawful sanctions regardless of what the majority want and hark back to the days when America was the frontier country of the 1700s

I am sorry to say the constitution as written is not fit for purpose or modern society  had the founding farther envisioned the types of weapons we have today i have no doubt they would have been more restrictions placed on weapons and who could own them and what type
of weapons you could own

Good points made there, Korben - but tbh I can't even take these shooters seriously. They are crackpot misfits and loners who have severe personality disorders and would not survive 5 minutes in a REAL army.

JulesV wrote:

Korben wrote:

I have no problem with the idea of a well-regulated militia however feel the Americans who quote this as justification Aka the constitution have corrupted the intention the founding fathers had when putting this in there constitution

Quote Alexander Hamilton

If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 29, January 10, 1788

most if not all western country have a form of militia ie a well trained group of civilians to be used in times of need
we had the home guard during the war and even today we have well trained civilians who come from the TA or the RNR or air force reserve

America has its own "well trained" equivalents but unlike other country's they also have the wanabe contingent who use the vauge "well-regulated militia " part of the constitution to claim the right to wander around armed to the teeth to fight against some imaginary oppressive government that is far to often just laws they don't like because they claim it infringes there Freedoms

but what they really want is the freedom to do what they like without fear of lawful sanctions regardless of what the majority want and hark back to the days when America was the frontier country of the 1700s

I am sorry to say the constitution as written is not fit for purpose or modern society had the founding farther envisioned the types of weapons we have today i have no doubt they would have been more restrictions placed on weapons and who could own them and what type
of weapons you could own

Good points made there, Korben - but tbh I can't even take these shooters seriously. They are crackpot misfits and loners who have severe personality disorders and would not survive 5 minutes in a REAL army.

They may be misfits and loners in the UK, but here they are ordinary southerners. We live with this every day. They were brought up, not as outcasts or anomalies, but everyday folks who believed slavery and violence to be normal. Who writes to George III, and says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." and then goes home to a farm with 600 slaves? We are not talking about intellectual giants, here.

It's certainly not righteous or proper, but they walk among us every day. Yes...a significant portion of the population of the south are misfits. Until we get rid of them, an occasional murder will crop up…like pimples on the ass of a chocolate lover. Washington politicians want us to learn to live with it; rather like Aztec sacrifices--we all have to give up every fifth child.

These people believe that killing 10 innocent people is perfectly normal. And we put up with it.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What's it going to take to keep relatives from killing their children?

Beats the hell out of me?

You're  so obsessed with the weapon, that you're skipping right over the part where a relative killed a 6 year old girl.

don't think i am skipping over it Md  ,the access to a weapon is a big part of the problem its the American "go to"
to solve problems ...or seems that way to a "outsider"

Andrea Yates says you're wrong.

Yes we have our misfits and loners in the UK but as it very difficult to get hold of a gun of any type, so the damage they can do is somewhat limited and when it does on rare occasions we tend to be pretty swift in enacting laws to limit further tragedy

it seems in America the opposite is true ,excuses are made why its wrong to enact more controls and gun sales go trough the roof
the simple fact is that because of the amount of guns in civilian hands America will never be able to curb the amount of gun violence or stop mass shootings because the prevalence of weapons of war, in your society, is antithetical to a peaceful society

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
don't think i am skipping over it Md  ,the access to a weapon is a big part of the problem its the American "go to"
to solve problems ...or seems that way to a "outsider"

Andrea Yates says you're wrong.  

a woman who  drowns her kids in the bath tub is not comparable to the amount of gun deaths regardless of age and family connections of the victims How many kids die like that in America compared, to gun deaths and i hate to say it but is just another whataboutisum to diminish the real amount of gun deaths

Why do you think America has this problem almost daily compared to the rest of the world where its rare
after all we all have baths but we don't all have guns

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Andrea Yates says you're wrong.  

a woman who  drowns her kids in the bath tub is not comparable to the amount of gun deaths regardless of age and family connections of the victims How many kids die like that in America compared, to gun deaths and i hate to say it but is just another whataboutisum to diminish the real amount of gun deaths

Why do you think America has this problem almost daily compared to the rest of the world where its rare
after all we all have baths but we don't all have guns

Gotchas. Dead kids only matter when they are killed with a firearm.

And you don't know what whataboutism is. You made an assertion that guns led to kids getting killed by family members.

Korben wrote:Yes we have our misfits and loners in the UK but as it very difficult to get hold of a gun of any type, so the damage they can do is somewhat limited and when it does on rare occasions we tend to be pretty swift in enacting laws to limit further tragedy

it seems in America the opposite is true  ,excuses are made why its wrong to enact more controls and gun sales go trough the roof
the simple fact is that because of the amount of guns in civilian hands America will never be able to curb the amount of gun violence or stop mass shootings because the prevalence of weapons of war, in your society, is antithetical to a peaceful society

99 percent of gun owners are peaceful.

Plenty on non gun owners are not.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
a woman who  drowns her kids in the bath tub is not comparable to the amount of gun deaths regardless of age and family connections of the victims How many kids die like that in America compared, to gun deaths and i hate to say it but is just another whataboutisum to diminish the real amount of gun deaths

Why do you think America has this problem almost daily compared to the rest of the world where its rare
after all we all have baths but we don't all have guns

Gotchas. Dead kids only matter when they are killed with a firearm.

No MD you haven't "Gotchas" you are using ones woman's actions to support gun ownership and violence, one is not the same as the other
if kids where being killed in the bath on the same scale as kids are with guns you might have a point but they arn't and you don't
its a deflection at best but i suspect you know that

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Gotchas. Dead kids only matter when they are killed with a firearm.

No MD you haven't "Gotchas" you are using ones woman's actions to support gun ownership and violence, one is not the same as the other
if kids where being killed in the bath on the same scale as kids are with guns you might have a point but they arn't and you don't
its a deflection at best but i suspect you know that  

Kids are killed in a myriad of ways. I'm more concerned with why, not how.

It's not like one way is less tragic than the other, and it's not like sick people that kill children need a special tool to do so.

And I don't support violence.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:Yes we have our misfits and loners in the UK but as it very difficult to get hold of a gun of any type, so the damage they can do is somewhat limited and when it does on rare occasions we tend to be pretty swift in enacting laws to limit further tragedy

it seems in America the opposite is true  ,excuses are made why its wrong to enact more controls and gun sales go trough the roof
the simple fact is that because of the amount of guns in civilian hands America will never be able to curb the amount of gun violence or stop mass shootings because the prevalence of weapons of war, in your society, is antithetical to a peaceful society

99 percent of gun owners are peaceful.  

Plenty on non gun owners are not.  

Well my guess is that 99% figure is a stab in the dark FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research.

But your argument seems to be as "99%"(your figure) are peaceful you don't need to do anything about the 1%?
so to throw your point back at you the amount of kids or adults killed don't matter because its only 1%

Maddog wrote:And I don't support violence.  

Of course you don't MD i would never suggest that you do i hope you know that

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
No MD you haven't "Gotchas" you are using ones woman's actions to support gun ownership and violence, one is not the same as the other
if kids where being killed in the bath on the same scale as kids are with guns you might have a point but they arn't and you don't
its a deflection at best but i suspect you know that  

Kids are killed in a myriad of ways. I'm more concerned with why, not how.  

It's not like one way is less tragic than the other, and it's not like sick people that kill children need a special tool to do so.  

I agree Kids are killed in a myriad of ways and the why is a good question but if you can remove even one way that's a bonus
30 years ago a guy walked in to a school here and killed a load of children we immediately passed laws to help stop the same thing occurring
by limiting the availability of guns The Nra and republicans would not do that even if a thousand kids where killed with a gun in a day ...thats just wrong

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Kids are killed in a myriad of ways. I'm more concerned with why, not how.  

It's not like one way is less tragic than the other, and it's not like sick people that kill children need a special tool to do so.  

I agree Kids are killed in a myriad of ways and the why is a good question but if you can remove even one way that's a bonus
30 years ago a guy walked in to a school here and killed a load of children we immediately passed laws to help stop the same thing occurring  
by limiting the availability of guns The Nra and republicans would not do that even if a thousand kids where killed with a gun in a day  ...thats just wrong  

Do you think kids lives are ever saved by a firearm?

Are they only used to take innocent life?

Do they ever report the defensive and life-saving uses of guns over there, or do you simply ignore those stories and focus on the bad?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
I agree Kids are killed in a myriad of ways and the why is a good question but if you can remove even one way that's a bonus
30 years ago a guy walked in to a school here and killed a load of children we immediately passed laws to help stop the same thing occurring  
by limiting the availability of guns The Nra and republicans would not do that even if a thousand kids where killed with a gun in a day  ...thats just wrong  

Do you think kids lives are ever saved by a firearm?

Are they only used to take innocent life?

Do they ever report the defensive and life-saving uses of guns over there, or do you simply ignore those stories and focus on the bad?  

\\Errr....eh Love to answer that question but i don't understand it.the Only people allowed to carry a gun in pubic are the police when on duty and even then only specially trained firearms officers or military when on duty and in a protection detail or in high security situations ,or terrorist situations ,and any situation that involves guns tends to be a big story over here and makes national news regardless of the outcome
Now while they are some notable exceptions when it comes to owning guns your "good guy with a gun scenario" above, is a strawman argument

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:And I don't support violence.  

Of course you don't MD i would never suggest that you do i hope you know that

I would talk to his ex before you make that judgment.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think kids lives are ever saved by a firearm?

Are they only used to take innocent life?

Do they ever report the defensive and life-saving uses of guns over there, or do you simply ignore those stories and focus on the bad?  

\\Errr....eh Love to answer that question but i don't understand it.the Only people allowed to carry a gun in pubic are the police when on duty and even then only specially trained firearms officers or military when on duty and in a protection detail or in high security situations ,or terrorist situations ,and any situation that involves guns tends to be a big story over here and makes national news regardless of the outcome
Now while they are some notable exceptions when it comes to owning guns your "good guy with a gun scenario" above, is a strawman argument

I don't think most uses of guns are big stories over there, because they are not even big stories over here.

People use guns over here every day to stop crime. It's not national news when it happens.

Original Quill wrote:

Korben wrote:
Of course you don't MD i would never suggest that you do i hope you know that

I would talk to his ex before you make that judgment.

She carries.

She must support violence.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
I agree Kids are killed in a myriad of ways and the why is a good question but if you can remove even one way that's a bonus
30 years ago a guy walked in to a school here and killed a load of children we immediately passed laws to help stop the same thing occurring  
by limiting the availability of guns The Nra and republicans would not do that even if a thousand kids where killed with a gun in a day  ...thats just wrong  

Do you think kids lives are ever saved by a firearm?

Are they only used to take innocent life?

Do they ever report the defensive and life-saving uses of guns over there, or do you simply ignore those stories and focus on the bad?  

Guns are designed to kill.  It's a contradiction in thinking to associate guns with saving lives.  People who gravitate toward guns see the world as a hostile place, and think of a gun as a means to empower themselves over others.  Most of the people with those mental problems, are the same people who start these shootings.

First, the argument that a threat of guns causes peace just doesn't work.  It involves a mental calculation, and most hostilities, fueled by alcohol, are situations where people simply don't engage their brains.  Even without alcohol, it’s a high-tension situation.

But, second, and what is more, the mind-set that the world is a hostile place is most often held by one that sees common challenges and expands them into needing uncommon responses.  This may or may not be exacerbated by the knowledge that he extra-empowered with a gun.  In extreme cases, we see them going into schools and supermarkets and killing dozens of people.  But even in less than extreme cases, we see murders that didn’t have to be, all because someone had a gun.  Treyvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery are examples.

I remember what one cop once told me: To a shooter, every killing is justified; what varies is the degree of derangement in his own mind.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think kids lives are ever saved by a firearm?

Are they only used to take innocent life?

Do they ever report the defensive and life-saving uses of guns over there, or do you simply ignore those stories and focus on the bad?  

Guns are designed to kill.  It's a contradiction in thinking to associate guns with saving lives.  People who gravitate toward guns see the world as a hostile place, and think of a gun as a means to empower themselves over others.  Most of the people with those mental problems, are the same people who start these shootings.

First, the argument that a threat of guns causes peace just doesn't work.  It involves a mental calculation, and most hostilities, fueled by alcohol, are situations where people simply don't engage their brains.  Even without alcohol, it’s a high-tension situation.

But, second, and what is more, the mind-set that the world is a hostile place is most often held by one that sees common challenges and expands them into needing uncommon responses.  This may or may not be exacerbated by the knowledge that he extra-empowered with a gun.  In extreme cases, we see them going into schools and supermarkets and killing dozens of people.  But even in less than extreme cases, we see murders that didn’t have to be, all because someone had a gun.  Treyvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery are examples.

I remember what one cop once told me: To a shooter, every killing is justified; what varies is the degree of derangement in his own mind.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill. That's why they are more effective than say a feather duster, at stopping someone.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Guns are designed to kill.  It's a contradiction in thinking to associate guns with saving lives.  People who gravitate toward guns see the world as a hostile place, and think of a gun as a means to empower themselves over others.  Most of the people with those mental problems, are the same people who start these shootings.

First, the argument that a threat of guns causes peace just doesn't work.  It involves a mental calculation, and most hostilities, fueled by alcohol, are situations where people simply don't engage their brains.  Even without alcohol, it’s a high-tension situation.

But, second, and what is more, the mind-set that the world is a hostile place is most often held by one that sees common challenges and expands them into needing uncommon responses.  This may or may not be exacerbated by the knowledge that he extra-empowered with a gun.  In extreme cases, we see them going into schools and supermarkets and killing dozens of people.  But even in less than extreme cases, we see murders that didn’t have to be, all because someone had a gun.  Treyvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery are examples.

I remember what one cop once told me: To a shooter, every killing is justified; what varies is the degree of derangement in his own mind.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill. That's why they are more effective than say a feather duster, at stopping someone.

That depends on who has the duster


ps a feather duster is the first one

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Guns are designed to kill. It's a contradiction in thinking to associate guns with saving lives. People who gravitate toward guns see the world as a hostile place, and think of a gun as a means to empower themselves over others. Most of the people with those mental problems, are the same people who start these shootings.

First, the argument that a threat of guns causes peace just doesn't work. It involves a mental calculation, and most hostilities, fueled by alcohol, are situations where people simply don't engage their brains. Even without alcohol, it’s a high-tension situation.

But, second, and what is more, the mind-set that the world is a hostile place is most often held by one that sees common challenges and expands them into needing uncommon responses. This may or may not be exacerbated by the knowledge that he extra-empowered with a gun. In extreme cases, we see them going into schools and supermarkets and killing dozens of people. But even in less than extreme cases, we see murders that didn’t have to be, all because someone had a gun. Treyvon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery are examples.

I remember what one cop once told me: To a shooter, every killing is justified; what varies is the degree of derangement in his own mind.

Yeah, guns are designed to kill. That's why they are more effective than say a feather duster, at stopping someone.

In the last week, guns stopped 8 'good people' in Georgia, and 10 'good people' in Colorado. How many 'bad-guys' were stopped?

Here's how a shooter rationalizes: guns kill bad-guys; I'm a good guy; ergo: every person that I, a good guy, shoot is a bad guy. Writ large, every shooting is a righteous shooting. Even criminals think this way, so in the gunner's mind, anyone you shoot is ipso facto a bad guy and deserves killing.

So, guns only kill bad guys, and that's where Red gets his thinking. After-the-fact guns might be determined to have been used by bad-guys, but before-the-fact everyone's innocent. Ergo: gun ownership can only be a good thing.

And this even disregards the thinking that having the gun, promotes the act of shooting the gun. Why even wait until he shoots first? Stopping the availability of guns is the only thing that will stop the killing.