School Shooting in Knoxville

[hog88]

For the Ohio kid it’s a solution looking for a problem. And I’m loving the reaction the solution is facilitating

They don't GAS about a solution. IMO there isn't a real solution

 

[NorthDallas40]

They don't GAS about a solution. IMO there isn't a real solution

The solution is banning private firearm ownership. Various problems will continue to be put forth to reach the desired solution. But thus far I’m loving the results of their hard work

 

[McDad]

Sure. But risks of those outcomes attach after a certain quantity is consumed. That quantity is far greater than 1 serving.

Of course. But that's part of the absurdity. A single unit is safer than multiple. (Part of Luther's position). But Luther being a responsible drunkard shouldn't be forced to a single beer or shot because of how others choose to use, abuse, and misuse even if illegal (like a kid stealing dad's supply).

 

[OHvol40]

A lot, and I mean a buttload, of devil's in the details with the approach in addressing the info you seek after it's gathered.

Absolutely. At the same time, accepting preventable deaths as a status quo is not an option to me.

 

[C-south]

Absolutely. At the same time, accepting preventable deaths as a status quo is not an option to me.

How do you feel about illegal immigration?

 

[RockyTop85]

Of course. But that's part of the absurdity. A single unit is safer than multiple. (Part of Luther's position). But Luther being a responsible drunkard shouldn't be forced to a single beer or shot because of how others choose to use, abuse, and misuse even if illegal (like a kid stealing dad's supply).

No, it’s really not, for the reasons I already explained. Repeating it doesn’t make it a better analogy.

Ok, but I don’t think it requires a contradiction for Luther to avoid some laughable outcome when faced with that analogy.

For both issues, the most effective measure would be some Thanos style snap of the fingers that results in no more alcohol and no more guns. But that’s too draconian. No reasonable person would find that to be an acceptable imposition on property rights or self-determination.

One serving per sale is probably a bit closer to “no alcohol period,” than one gun per month is, just in terms of societal norms.

It’s certainly not equivalent to the potential for harm. You can still kill a bunch of people with a gun purchased at a one-off sale. The risk of any harm from a single serving of alcohol is infinitesimal.

As you go less restrictive on that quantity axis to try to make them equivalent, the nexus between the quantity sold at one go and the harm breaks down, depending on context. 7 oz of booze consumed in an hour or two at a bar, your best judgement is probably not to drive home, but 45 oz of booze bought to take home and sit on a shelf between single servings doesn’t necessarily correlate to a higher frequency of death.

So running it through that same rubric of looking for a less invasive, more efficient restriction would produce a different outcome and still be consistent, IMO.

All you’re really saying is “my wild ass guess about whether my rationale is valid is equivalent to your working paper about whether yours is.” It just emphasizes the disagreement over the validity of his justification. It doesn’t make his point absurd.

 

[luthervol]

Just got in and grabbed a beer out of the six pack. What did I miss?

 

[sona]

Just got in and grabbed a beer out of the six pack. What did I miss?

I'd start with the fact that the bullet that struck the officer was not fired from the dead kid's weapon. It unravels from there. Either the cop shot himself in the bathroom scuffle or his partner did.

 

[hog88]

Absolutely. At the same time, accepting preventable deaths as a status quo is not an option to me.

Apparently it is an option for you.

 

[McDad]

Absolutely. At the same time, accepting preventable deaths as a status quo is not an option to me.

Feel as passionate about all preventable deaths?

 

[McDad]

No, it’s really not, for the reasons I already explained. Repeating it doesn’t make it a better analogy.


All you’re really saying is “my wild ass guess about whether my rationale is valid is equivalent to your working paper about whether yours is.” It just emphasizes the disagreement over the validity of his justification. It doesn’t make his point absurd.

I cannot help you any further. The conclusion you're drawing is not the conclusion my illustration is attempting.

 

[VolStrom]

Feel as passionate about all preventable deaths?

Only the ones that don't require him to give up anything.

 

[Orangeburst]

I cannot help you any further. The conclusion you're drawing is not the conclusion my illustration is attempting.

Have a snickers!

 

[NorthDallas40]

I cannot help you any further. The conclusion you're drawing is not the conclusion my illustration is attempting.

You will now be informed it’s because you are too stupid to articulate your example and it isn’t his fault you cannot express yourself adequately. That is the only possible explanation that makes sense... right?

 

[McDad]

You will now be informed it’s because you are too stupid to articulate your example and it isn’t his fault you cannot express yourself adequately. That is the only possible explanation that makes sense... right?

Certainly within the realm of valid possibilities for the crossed wires.

Feels to me like we had agreement until the the final portion of my illustration because it went against a pre conceived opinion.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Certainly within the realm of valid possibilities for the crossed wires.

Feels to me like we had agreement until the the final portion of my illustration because it went against a pre conceived opinion.

You don’t say...

 

[82_VOL_83]

There is no honest discussion amongst most here, and most have admitted as much. I post information, and the response is “so what”, or “not interested”, or “not relavent” without reason.

So to try and discuss something with people that don’t want to acknowledge facts then there is no discussion to be had. As I said earlier, 2A people can put their heads in the sand if they so please, but the country as a whole is only getting more fed up with our gun violence trends, so the avoidance is at their own peril. If you can’t articulate your position logically then you won’t be considered at the decision table eventually. So, my advice is to start articulating and quit avoiding the truths that concern your fellow citizens. Stop devaluing other perspectives if you wish that your perspective is to be valued.

When you show yourselves capable of enforcing the laws you have, come back and talk. Defunding police departments is hilarious. Your 2A abolition efforts die on the tip of your tongue.

 

[McDad]

You will now be informed it’s because you are too stupid to articulate your example and it isn’t his fault you cannot express yourself adequately. That is the only possible explanation that makes sense... right?

I'm at peace knowing it's a simple and understandable corollary to Luther's absurd position.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

How many people die from automobile crashes? People do stupid **** every day.

An automobile's intended function isn't as a lethal weapon

 

[82_VOL_83]

I could not agree more. There is rarely legitimate debate here, and original thoughts are almost equally devoid.

When you start with more laws when you CAN'T enforce the ones you have, you have no debate to begin with. Leave me the F alone. I promise to keep my guns home at night and not wandering the streets. I promise to keep them locked in a safe so that only a herculean effort can get to them. Those are my concessions. What are yours?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm at peace knowing it's a simple and understandable corollary to Luther's absurd position.

I was able to follow you and yes Luther’s stance was absurd which is the norm.

 

[NorthDallas40]

An automobile's intended function isn't as a lethal weapon

An automobile actually has a brain and can even drive itself today. A firearm is an inert group of formed metal pieces incapable of doing any action on its own. I’d say the auto clearly has more propensity for destruction from its own capability.

 

[OHvol40]

How do you feel about illegal immigration?

I think it’s problem number 15,785 on my priority list... but I think we shouldn’t just let anyone in. I also think we shouldn’t be treating people inhumanly. I think it’s an extremely complex problem that involves people fleeing life threatening situations, cartels that profit from it, drugs, and sovereign nations that either play no role or use it as leverage to gain favor or riches. Why?

 

[McDad]

I was able to follow you and yes Luther’s stance was absurd which is the norm.

Yeah but you're an engineer and have no social skills and don't relate with humans well. So I'm not sure that's a point in my favor.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Nice try.
COVID: California can't totally ban worship, Supreme Court rules | cbs8.com
The Supreme Court is telling California it can't enforce a ban on indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The high court issued orders late Friday in two cases where churches had sued over coronavirus-related restrictions in the state. The high court said that for now, California can't ban indoor worship in areas where virus cases are surging, but it can cap indoor services at 25% of a building's capacity. The justices also declined to stop the state from barring singing and chanting at services.

And this is another deflection and means absolutely dick when it comes to the discussion you were trying to have.

I see you Looth, you and your ********.