Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by BenjaminW, Feb 19, 2018.
Ok so it was for and not to. I admit my mistake
Can you get one damn thing right?
I did. Thanks
And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.
What have you gotten right?
Did you even read the link I posted, including the sources listed?
Approximately 430,000 of the deleted entries are actually still in the database, just under a different heading.
That leaves a much smaller total of 70,000 people formerly classified as fugitives whose names were actually removed from the database (though some of those will be added back in if and when the FBI determines that subjects crossed state lines or qualify under other prohibitors).
Despite the politicized reporting of the Justice Department’s reinterpretation of “fugitive from justice,” which was undertaken in good faith to conform to federal statutes and resolve a longstanding conflict between agencies, there’s no evidence that it was a partisan determination. The matter was first referred to the DOJ for adjudication under Bush, finally resolved under Obama, and implemented under Trump. Its consequences have been questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike.
So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep
My source has independently verifiable sources, so yes. My source is more accurate than yours.
You're more than welcome to check directly with the FBI and DOJ, who are sourced in the link I posted.
I mean, I guess anything is offensive when you're looking for something to be outraged about that's simply not there. White privilege is an inadequate (imo) term that describes a real thing, the kid is aware that white people are more often taken seriously when these uncomfortable topics come up. There's a reason why MLK had to work with LBJ to get support from the majority of the white moderate, he wouldn't have been successful at all if he hadn't.
As for your friend, I think he should listen to the kid's words more carefully because that's not at all that he said.
The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so
Maybe you've never taken any high school or college level classes, but when you do, you'll have to write papers. Now, you can't just say whatever you want, you have to source your material.
That means you provide footers and list your sources for the reader (grader) to verify your claims.
Journalists, at least any worth taking seriously, do similar. They cite where they got thier information.
Snopes is famous for sourcing thier articles. Not just by name dropping another poorly sourced article but actually giving a list of multiple places where the reader can confirm they're not just making stuff up on the spot.
Yeah, it's a little bit more reading, but it's worth it. Don't want to look like a fucking idiot in front of everybody.
Not sure how any of this works as a valid response to anything I wrote, but I'll bite. There's no proof that he actually said that, if you think snopes is untrustworthy then go ahead and find a legit source. Ironically, snopes does list some verifiable disparaging quotes from LBJ in the article about your quote above. Then again, I never said the guy was a perfect paragon of civil rights.....
Judging by this clip, it doesnt seem far fetched that he would have said what I claimed
Snopes marks it as "Unproven" and not "False", so I don't really see the problem. They're not claiming that he absolutely never said it or anything.
Come on guys, nothing on this page has anything to do with gun control, the second amendment, guns or shootings. I think it's pretty clear all this troll wants to do is screw around.
As of right now 71.8% of voters voted for gun control. I think everyone has exhausted their points.
Look I certainly dont want legitimately psycopathic people to have guns.....and I certainly dont want to see innocent people get shot, but I dont think we need to apply more restrictions on everyone including non-psychopaths because of that. The rules that are already in place just need to be enforced, theres no doubt about that. As it is right now, if you are a criminal, you cannot buy a gun. If you have a gun and commit a crime, your gun will be taken away.
Oh and we need an FBI that will actually do their job. We need to somehow teach our youth to be more responsible, so they breed a generation of responsible people. I would like more security at schools at the very least. Armed security, metal detectors possibly, checking of bags of students.
If we hypothetically banned all guns, would there still be a need for tighter security? Absolutely
I think we could have got to this place sooner, but I'm glad we did manage to get here.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Common sense says you can't shoot someone without a gun.
Imageine I wake up one day and decide that I'd like to murder a large group of people, and I have no immediate means to do so (because of reasonable gun laws or whatever have you), then it's more likely I'd come to my senses by the time I found and acted on the longer and less effective way around. Therefore lives are saved. As opposed to the other scenario, where I wake up, decide a bunch of people need to be dead because I'm angry right now and OH LOOK A LOADED GUN. Is it that difficult a concept to understand?
I mean, that's the whole point of things like waiting periods - to take immediate opportunity from people who would otherwise act on spontaneous urges to misuse a weapon.
I follow what your saying but that doesn't apply to the recent florida shooting, the orlando night club shooting, or sandy hook, or virginia tech, or the oklahoma city bombing. Hell, it doesn't apply to any mass or murder at all; maybe only to smaller single instances. And thats a huge maybe.
By your logic, all of these mass shooters should have "cooled down" by the time they were done strategically planning what they were going to do. Let alone when they finished the plan, they packed up everything and got in their car (they still weren't "cooled down"yet). Then when the finally arrived at their destination and they had to begin their next phase of acting out their plan, thats where reality would have struck them the most, but they still didnt cool down.
Obviously that logic didnt apply in the case that happened yesterday where the kid shot his sister over a video game. Im sure he didn't have the gun sitting next to him in the bedroom, im sure it was in his parents bedroom and he knew how to get to it. So if he was angry with her why didnt he just hit her over the head with the controller? What made him......what kind of angry, murderously-maddening rage, did this kid have for him to walk to his parents bedroom, grab the gun, possibly load it by hand, possibly turn the safety off, walk all the way back to the bedroom, point the gun at his own sister and pull the trigger? (I dont know all the details but im assuming it happened like that)
Who in their right mind would shoot and kill his own sister?! No one. Because they're obviously NOT in their right mind. People who are not in their right mind don't care if a gun is not readily available, they only want to satiafy their rage.
The Sandy Hook shooter went to the lengths of killing his own mother, and destroying his computer of evidence, only to kill others and finally take his own life. Mind you its known he was on or coming off of anti-depressants, (another thing people like to glaze over) which have a myriad of side-effects including suicide.
The las vegas shooter? Obviously another pre-meditated murder from a man who was seemingly normal...alot of things dont2 add up. in this case either theres usually witnesses of multiple shooters in alot of these cases too.
Batman movie shooting in colorado.....witnesses saw multiple shooters. I think that kid was on meds too.
If these people are going to all these lengths to do what they're doing, they would have found another tool to complete their destruction.
You dont just "wake up one day and decide to murder a large group of people", without something being very very fucked in your head. Nobody does that for no reason. And if they're that fucked up, theres no stopping them unless you put them in a straight jacket.
Therefore it is a mental problem. Not a gun problem. The fact that Cruz said he had voices in his head telling him to do that reinforces that. I dont buy your cool down period theory one bit. That only works for sane people who dont plan on doing mass shootings anyway.
It absolutely applies to that case. Proper gun laws would have made it illegal for the weapon to be in a place that the kid could get to it. Anything less is irresponsible. Like what Max described earlier on -> responsible gun ownership means cases and locks and ammo being separated, and not letting people know where these things are, and not leaving the keys within reach of children, etc. Anyone who doesn't do these things but calls themselves a responsible gun owner is wrong. They are not responsible at all. Unfortunately not every sees it that way -> Therefor the law needs to be in place to MAKE people be responsible with what they have.
I disagree with this as well. If tight enough controls are in place, and availability to weapons is reduced, it may not prevent the attacks from happening at all, but could reduce the number of people who have to die when it happens, which is equally worth doing. If the only thing available for mass shootings were weapons that don't have features that make mass killings easy, then less people die. That means smaller magazines, that means no auto- or semi- auto guns (I honestly see no need for those even in cases where people claim they need guns for whatever reason), it means limitations of the types of ammo that are better suited to killing people, things like that.
But again, I'm just repeating things that have already been spelled out in both very plain and more eloquent terms in this thread.
I don't understand this line of thinking that goes "well, we can't prevent 100% of it, so we shouldn't bother trying to prevent any of it". I mean, you've even had some posts yourself where it sounded like you agreed with this idea of gun control making a positive difference, but then immediately dive back into trying to poke holes in it.
It's the inner torment of every gun enthusiast. When you know that gun control will work but you really really don't want to give up your hobby and you really really really don't want to give any ground to the bleeding heart gay liberal agenda pansy snowflake tree hugging eco feminazis.
Just as an example. My dad is a benefactor NRA member. He is a complete moron when it comes to guns. He has a few but they just sit in the cabinet for years at a time getting rusty and compressing the magazine springs. For him it is purely political. He likes to put on this image of macho gun guy rugged outdoor hunter type. He doesn't hunt at all. Hasn't been hunting in over 20 years and even then it was just sitting in the back yard shooting squirrels out of the trees with a .22lr. He has developed such a hatred for anything left of the extreme right that he would rather see world burn than admit gun control would work. Unfortunately that is the attitude the majority of these people have. Even if they do care in the slightest about kids getting massacred at school, they would rather deal with that than admitting people that aren't conservative republicans are right about anything.
You have to remember that these are people that believe in angels and creationism. They think shooters are just demon possessed and that jesus and better morals are the answer. If everybody would just quit being evil and pray over this it would all go away and we wouldn't need gun control.
EDIT: On the topic of pissing off conservatives and preventing mass murder. I am a truck driver so I see tons of religious and anti-abortion billboards everywhere (especially the Midwest). I was thinking about an ad campaign like "Should've had a V8" but for abortion. You know have a big billboard with a picture of Hitler saying "Should've had an abortion" or a picture of Charles Manson or these school shooters. It all could've been prevented with abortion lol.