Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster
- Thread starter Xelor
- Start date
so is wet asparagus so what?
Your amazing (sarc) revelation doesn't change the simple truth of my statement:
That guns are weapons of violence... and thus pro gun lobbying is advocating violence.
Whether you like it or not your pro-gun stance is actually a pro violence stance...
Name one use that doesn't involve violence, including the threat of violence of some sort?
Even target practice is an act of violence using violent means with the view to becoming more skilled at violent solutions.
I know you will not acknowledge my point as valid but I am interested in what copy and paste posting you may come up with to pursue your agenda.
If you can't find an appropriate copy and paste retort I suggest you create one...and post it to be challenged and tested.
defending using violence as the solution... true
Perhaps by ceasing to promote violence the need to prepare to defend yourself will lessen.
reap as you sow
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
The gunner in the Indiana school shooting today was taken out by an unarmed person.
Not so much.
=========================================
Parkland surveillance video shows officer standing outside school during shooting
USA TODAY NETWORK
Alexi C. Cardona and Patrick Riley, Naples (Fla.) Daily News
Published 12:51 p.m. ET March 15, 2018
NAPLES, Fla. — Surveillance footage released Thursday shows then-school resource deputy Scot Peterson standing outside of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School building where students and faculty inside were being shot, then running out of view, not to be seen again on other school cameras.
The 27-minute video was released after multiple media organizations, including the USA TODAY Network, petitioned for it to be made public. The footage shows Peterson’s movements during the Feb. 14 shooting from four camera angles.
In the days following the massacre, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson should have gone into the building and “killed the killer.”
Peterson retired from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office following the criticism. . . .
At 2:23:48 p.m., Peterson and the school staffer are seen running toward a shaded area near Building 13 and pointing up. The deputy stops running, turns to face the freshman building and stands 25 to 30 yards from it. The shooting ended about six minutes after it started, and the deputy didn’t move from his spot.
Peterson stood by the building for about 26 minutes. He walks out of camera range at 2:50:39 p.m. and isn’t seen in school surveillance footage again.
================================================
What is stumping you about this? It isn't hard to understand. He's exhibiting cowardice not courage; bluster not balls.
And you're hiding behind it.
You always get foggy with the language when you're cornered like that. Symptom.
But the obvious explanation - that you were deflecting and ducking again, throwing chaff because you were cornered again - was one you didn't like. It illustrated my point about the role of cowardice in the bothsides jamb.
So you keep telling me. Your "explanation" is that racism is endemic to America in general, and affects many aspects of American life, so it can't be among the roots of specifically American gun culture. I thought there had to be a typo or something the first time I read that - but you doubled down, repeated it.
So that looks bizarrely stupid, of course, but after consideration I know better: it's just another example of the crippling effects on reason of taking one of the sides of the bothsides jamb. You aren't actually that mentally incapable, it's just that you are personally invested in defending the indefensible.
? Plenty of facts - multiple quotes, even. You repeat them yourself.
And your argument was in favor of 30 round magazines, so you could defend yourself against "predators". You were explicit about that - charging grizzly bears, bobcats, feral hogs and dogs, mountain lions, poachers, you included a list. Along with that you told me I had no experience with predators, was a city boy all my life who didn't understand the threat they posed, and so forth. That's why I didn't understand your need for high capacity magazines, with all these bears and pumas around, if you recall.
Meanwhile, you have yet to present any "data" here, any at all - you seem to be confusing data with anecdotes. As with the other semi-technical terms you employ, you have never bothered to find out what the word means and how literate people use it.
So: I certainly haven't ignored your feedback. I've been making fun of it, repeatedly and specifically, and noting the cowardice it displays, at some length. I even analyzed your links for you (you clearly hadn't bothered) mindful of the context of that stupid predator shit - the frequency and importance of reloading-time intervals and rate of fire in mass shootings, the manifest unimportance of magazine size or rate of fire for good guy guns, the juvenile nature of the fantasies involved in imagining that anything more than about six rounds is going to make the slightest difference in an actual predator encounter or stopping bad guy scene, and so forth, all repeated several times, all directly informed by your posts and links.
2) Yeah, it is. The bothsides jamb is saturated with irrational fears, fantasies of looming threats, charging grizzly bears even (you and Betsy Devos - - ).
3) You'd have to be able to describe my bias, to discuss it. That would mean reading my posts with comprehension. You up for that?
No, you aren't. Nobody in the bothsides jamb can read with comprehension and respond in good faith or honest analysis, on the issue of gun control - they're mutually exclusive states of mind. And among the reasons for that is the inherent cowardice common to both sides.
Last edited:
In three of the nine examples specifically designated by Buzzfeed as illustrating "armed civilians" stopping a shooter, above in this thread, the key role in stopping the shooter was played by an unarmed person.
Bells
Staff member
A note about the Santa Fe shooting that killed 10 recently:
The school district had an active-shooter plan, and two armed police officers walked the halls of the high school.
[snip]
They thought they were a hardened target, part of what’s expected today of the American public high school in an age when school shootings occur with alarming frequency. And so a death toll of 10 was a tragic sign of failure and needing to do more, but also a sign, to some, that it could have been much worse.
[snip]
The gunman shot a school police officer who approached him, then talked with other officers, offering to surrender. The entire episode lasted a terrifying 30 minutes, according to witnesses and court records.
[snip]
They thought they were a hardened target, part of what’s expected today of the American public high school in an age when school shootings occur with alarming frequency. And so a death toll of 10 was a tragic sign of failure and needing to do more, but also a sign, to some, that it could have been much worse.
[snip]
The gunman shot a school police officer who approached him, then talked with other officers, offering to surrender. The entire episode lasted a terrifying 30 minutes, according to witnesses and court records.
An armed former police officer, who had training to deal with these sorts of situations, was shot by the kid and opened fire on the trained police officers at the scene before he surrendered.
So what does the Lieutenant Governor of Texas suggest?
Mr Patrick, a Republican, said the best way to stop a gunman was with a gun. "But even better than that is four to five guns to one," he told CNN.
The "good guy with the gun", was shot before he could take down the shooter. The "good guys with their guns", trained police officers, were unable to take him down. He surrendered because he did not want to kill himself.
When another mass shooting occurred in Texas in 2017, this time in a Church, 26 were slaughtered and 20 injured. The good guy with the gun", engaged the shooter after he had left the Church.. After he had already massacred 26 people. That "good guy with the gun" is credited with having saved more lives.. Keep in mind the guy was apparently walking back towards his car, after shooting up the Church during a service/mass.
Meanwhile, they miss the obvious...
Before another armed person intervened against the Sutherland Springs gunman, he had already killed at least 26 people and injured approximately 20 others. He managed to shoot more than 40 people before “a good guy with a gun” reportedly helped stop him.
Not to mention that if the gunman didn’t have access to firearms, “a good guy with a gun” wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
Not to mention that if the gunman didn’t have access to firearms, “a good guy with a gun” wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
The whole concept of arming people, civilians to try to stop or prevent mass shootings is built on a horrifically false narrative. And when actual armed civilians try to intervene in mass shootings, the results have been horrific.
It is worth nothing that civilians who have actually stopped mass shootings, have been unarmed.
Instead of dealing with the obvious, we get responses like we saw recently in Texas.. From too many doors, to abortion access, to video games, TV and the media, to ritalin, lack of God in schools, to unhealthy diets, over-medication of children, to "progressive culture" (I shit you not!) to whining about the criticism against toxic masculinity..
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
He didn't need a gun to be a good guy. What's stumping y'all on this? It isn't difficult...
the exact same thing can be argued about guns. They're primarily used to target shoot or display and rarely used as weapons (as demonstrated by the sheer volume of weapons in the US and the minority of killing compared to the volume of guns and number of users).
Plus, by definition, a target rifle is "designed" to accurately put a round down-range for the purpose of hitting a target.
killing, or violence, is all about intent. It requires a person or a mind capable of enforcing or using its will.
A gun isn't designed to kill - it is designed to accurately deliver a bullet (which is designed to maximize damage for the sake of a kill, or to be accurate, or both). The intent of the developer may well have been to kill, but that, again, requires the person to assign intent.
so if a gun is designed to kill (using that argument), then the designer has the intention to do something. or ... "A thing intended; an aim or plan". This requires a conscious effort and a decision, which is intent (see above links). So the design, which is the accurate delivery of a round, has intent assigned by human or conscious interaction, which still means the purpose can be changed by the user.
so that means the intention is completely subjective
so, if we go by marketing, then if I drink coke and buy chevy I will not only get all the hot chicks but I will be a professional athlete with a large house and fan base who can own a construction business and work on the side without ever getting my shirt dirty...
marketing targets a specific audience and the internal desires, hopes and dreams of the culture or society it's in, be it the image above or the fact that guns are bad/good.
assignment of intent or emotion (or virility, or image, or...) to an inanimate tool comes entirely from the user
(personally, I prefer the ad's from Latin America)
you're right. cars and fists tend to kill more people a year... which is the point
marketing isn't the point at all as it's completely arbitrary and typically heavily influenced by the culture it's targeting.
actually, I've learned, from experience, that you can learn a lot more about a culture, and faster, by watching its commercials and reading their ads, than you can by a course.
if you want to make a claim, you should do the work to support the claim
true, because intent requires a person to interpret and apply said intent
see reply above
millions of guns are not used every day for violence, therefore your argument is not only from ignorance and personal fears but also fallacious
you can say that you perceive it to be as such, but you cannot state that it is advocacy of violence, especially considering the statistics (even in your own nation, as linked)
sports target shooting
an entire sport that involves only putting a round down range accurately. no threat of violence. absolutely no violence unless you want to start counting chemical reactions or the target being disrupted by the round.
right. because all the sports shooters at the Olympics have live targets to show proficiency.
you make the assumption that a shooter wants to be proficient for the purpose of an intent of violence or potential violence. Most target shooters just want to hit paper as accurately as they can. They don't have a desire for violence. that is your interpretation of sports target shooting.
here is a question: How many polls can you provide that demonstrate sport target shooters are practising with the intent to "becoming more skilled at violent solutions"?
I've never seen one.
target practice for any shooter means developing proficiency in a weapon. it is not the same thing as the sport.
you're the one advocating for violence.
your argument boils down to promotion of violence as it doesn't allow the victim to present a viable defense against a predator (of any kind)
it totally ignores that there are many uses for a gun (any kind) than violent action and or death
this shows your ignorance more than anything, and it assumes that because you believe something to be true then it must be true
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Okay, Stimpy, you can run.
risk assessment is critical in this.
as well as ignorance and the instinctual responses of the individual(s) in the situation.
most people will not react for the purpose of disarmament.
you cannot make assumptions that a society or culture will react a certain way, and it's harder still when individuals are involved.
so... you want to make a claim but it requires me to do your work?
Sounds more like you want to troll and then malign my moniker ...
or are you just not proficient at typing?
go here: https://app.grammarly.com/
it's free.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
So, you agree that having a gun handy doesn't improve a person's chances of acting properly in a crisis. Thanks.
And you still hide, proving my point. Well done.
And you still hide, proving my point. Well done.
since plain English isn't working, and I've already asked you to actually make a point or claim but you've refused:
I've not agreed to anything you state yet
and you have yet to present a coherent argument with any references to specifics - your entire argument is "Stumpy, can you post the definition of "false equivalence"?"
and then "Okay, Stimpy, you can run"
no evidence
no links
no references to what you're talking about
no quotes
no other anything other than your claim and then denigration on the 16th and 17th page (respectively) of a thread with 335 posts
It's not like there aren't several arguments in play at the moment...
so, is someone supposed to break out the magic 8-ball and shake it up to see what post, comment, information or quote you're referring to?
or do we have to hire a psychic to determine what context your comment should be taken since you won't actually do anything other than troll?
Tarot? Runestones? evisceration of a goat or other animal? Or should we combine a Japanese Tea ceremony with occultic divination?
what is the more accurate way of determining what you're talking about since you've refused to actually do anything than troll?
I have a ouija board for talking to mom... she's not dead, so that explains why I never get a reply. I can use that if it will help you
(need I point out the sarcasm or humour above to elucidate my point? or did ya' catch it?)
this demonstrates your intent to troll and post arbitrary stupidity without evidence or even a coherent argument
if you actually have a point, feel free to expound, make your claim, show your evidence and link the validation
otherwise, you're the one "hiding" behind your troll comments and proving it every time you comment like above
to reiterate, using language you can comprehend: And you still hide, proving my point. Well done
Thanks
EDIT: until you can make a coherent argument with links and references, or quotes, etc... I'm probably going to ignore you
if there is no point in arguing with an illiterate who can't clearly state an argument, the context of a point or link references, and then said poster determines your state of mind or acceptance about anything, then I can apply the same to this current attempt at discourse.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
So much blather.
it is however true that you have turned the use of "false equivalence " in to a true art form...
it wins you no credibility.
Please treat other members with respect. Objectionable posts can be reported with the "report" function.
Gawd, you're as big a troll as anyone you accuse of trollhood, Shut the fuck up until you can say something pertinent. Or just shut the fuck up.