Okay, this is something I've been trying to sort out in my mind. Does the dogma of salvation through faith rather than works make some people worse. Sodini wrote: "Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell." I recall Timothy McVeigh saying much of the same thing.
Also, you can't blame this on guns. DC has had an absolute gun ban forever, and people routinely get shot there. Ditto Chicago and many other cities. There are probably over 300 million guns in the US. Passing a law that bans all of them does not make them magically disappear.
I recognize the desire to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals or crazy people, and would support it if we can find a way to do so without violating the Constitution.
You can't blame this on guns. The blame is madness, or cruelty, or hate, or whatever motivated the act.
“Virtually every crime gun in the United States starts off as a legal firearm,” according to
then-Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) director Bradley Buckles in 2000.
I love that everyone's talking about the guns instead of the women who were killed by this hateful person.
Oh, wait, did I type "love"?
If you have something to say about them, why aren't you saying it?Already said all I know about them, which is that they were victims of a hate crime.
If you have something to say about them, why aren't you saying it?
I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say you blame guns.
Does an individual have to have a license in order to own and operate a gun? If so, is that license periodically subject to renewal?When you buy a gun, the gun store takes your ID and info, and then calls the FBI for an instant background check.
Does an individual have to have a license in order to own and operate a gun? If so, is that license periodically subject to renewal?
A tragedy occurred. It involved guns. Had the perpetrator not had guns, the chance of the tragedy occurring, and the chance of the scale of it being as large had it occurred, probably both would have been lessened. The fact that he had guns was therefore a significant factor contributing towards the perpetration of a tragedy."there are a lot of fallacious assumptions being made in this argument. the biggest is the assumption that tighter gun control laws would have prevented him from owning a gun.
A tragedy occurred. It involved guns. Had the perpetrator not had guns, the chance of the tragedy occurring, and the chance of the scale of it being as large had it occurred, probably both would have been lessened. The fact that he had guns was therefore a significant factor contributing towards the perpetration of a tragedy."
second, you assume that a lack of a gun would have lessened the extent of his crime.
while it's certainly possible
then I'd like to hear what you were trying to say.
no, I read the back and forth, there. I thought I'd try to address what you were saying to Astro Zombie because you weren't making a whole lot of sense and you're not making any very good points. But if you don't want to explain yourself any further, that's cool, too.
no, I came away with "you're not making any very good points."
no, I don't disagree with those things. I disagree that guns are to blame for this incident. but, as I said, you're more than welcome to give me an explanation for the comment I responded to, so that I understand why you think guns are to blame for this a little better.
but since DC's gun laws have NOT stopped gun violence in DC, the implication is...
I don't see why you believe that the availability of guns, and the gun culture are to blame, either. I see you saying that you believe it, but not why.
I believe this guy would have found something to commit this crime with, that he wouldn't have had a hard time doing so, and that he could have found something more dangerous than a gun to do it with.
I still believe that, except when "guns" is used as a metonym for a human agent or action.
If he had not had such easy access to guns, there's a significant chance that less people would be dead by his hand.what makes you say this? I understand that you believe it, but as you said "it's just an assertion you're making."
If he had not had such easy access to guns, there's a significant chance that less people would be dead by his hand.
since a gun isn't necessary for this guy to have killed these people, I still don't see why guns are to blame.
meaning that's how you used the word, or that's the empirical definition?
Really? You plant to sort through my entire posting history to see if, in one of my umpteen million stupid comments, I might have misused the word "blame" in a comment meant to be funny?
"I am not an important man... I possess only my personal sense of dignity. My life has been reduced to nothing by an intolerable insult. Therefore, I have nothing to lose except my life, which is nothing, so I trade my life for yours, as your life is favoured. The exchange is in my favour, so I shall not only kill you, but I shall kill many of you, and at the same time rehabilitate myself in the eyes of the group of which I am a member, even though I might be killed in the process."
<!--At the gym I saw a woman I like. I see her at the park and ride sometimes, so she isn't a stranger. Occationaly she makes good eye contact and smiles, etc. She is maybe 40ish, and attractive to me. I made brief conversation to her and a younger woman she was with today. To get a friend like her (and for night time action) I would cancel this plan, or put on hold, at least for a while.<BR>
In a culture of ornament, by contrast, manhood is defined by appearance, by youth and attractiveness, by money and aggression, by posture and swagger and "props," by the curled lip and petulant sulk and flexed biceps, by the glamour of the cover boy, and by the market-bartered "individuality" that sets one astronaut or athlete or gangster above another. These are the same traits that have long been designated as the essence of feminine vanity, the public face of the feminine as opposed to the private caring, maternal one. The aspects of this public "femininity"—objecticitifation, passivity, infantilization, pedestal-perching, and mirror-gazing—are the very ones that women have in modern times denounced as trivializing and humiliating qualities imposed on them by a misogynistic culture. No wonder men are in such agony. Not only are they losing the society they were once essential to, they are "gaining" the very world women so recently shucked off as demeaning and dehumanizing.
The old American male paradigm can offer no help to a man competing with ghostly, two-dimensional armies of superathletes, gangsta rappers, action heroes, and stand-up comedians on television. Navigating the ornamental realm, much less trying to derive a sense of manhood from it, has become a nightmare all the more horrible for being virtually unacknowledged as a problem. At the close of the century, men find themselves in an unfamiliar world where male worth is measured only by participation in a celebrity-driven consumer culture and awarded by lady luck. There is no passage to manhood in such a world. A man can only wait to be discovered.; and even if he lucks out, his "achievement" is fraught with gender confusion for its "feminine" implications of glamour and display.
I have slept alone for over 20 years. Last time I slept all night with a girlfriend it was 1982. Proof I am a total malfunction. Girls and women don't even give me a second look ANYWHERE. There is something BLATANTLY wrong with me that NO goddam person will tell me what it is.
« Older Large-scale homeless organization: the hot new... | Some new dance moves for next year's prom! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments