another mass shooting

[_Themis]

There is more than a single "difference", so such simplifications are obtuse, possibly moronic. Apart from the emotional and imbecilic nature of that graphic, it is nothing more than propaganda. Ergo my posted anecdote which refutes the bad-logic that One-Eye loves to perpetuate. It is like claiming that "the police" are racists, systematically, when the evidence concludes only with "this officer" is racist.

So, while people think that having a gun regulation system like "Country A" is what will solve, or even diminish, gun violence in America they fail to realize the error in their thinking...its a keeping up with the Jones' mentality that just simply does not work. So yeah, if there were no guns anywhere then there would not be any gun deaths, but tragedy would still remain...so why think that treating the symptom will cure the disease?...because narrow minded emotional bearers of the ever popular hair-fire have the myopia of partisan politics....and that myopia is vicarious at best. People like One-Eye are brave with their tongues but cowards with their hands....even here, it is safe for them to assume their self-anointed role as pontificate because they know it is a safe place...where they can seek solace and comfort among "like minded"....it is a herd mentality founded on being secure where one feels weak.

But anyway, I am reminded of the Michael Che joke where he speaks about how it makes sense that the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, because the 1st amendment is about being able to speak your mind as you see fit.

You could have said this in one sentence that you don't have an argument and been done with it.

[_honorentheos]

WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN SENSIBLE
Man allegedly leaves lunch table and drives car into restaurant, killing daughter and daughter-in-law
But in recent months, Self had been wrestling with mental illness, Austin Rammell, a pastor at Venture Church, told WSOC. A family friend for 16 years, he told the station Self was beset by anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns. Sometimes he would go days without leaving his bed, Rammell said.

‘‘He’s been taking precautions. He had all the guns removed from his house, so he was making steps that were rational steps.’’

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

Red herring, ____.

But your campaign to paint all people with mental health issues as murderous ticking time bombs that will go off regardless of whether or not they have access to firearms is noted.

____.

geez, and i even typed slow because i knew a rube like yourself would be unable to readily discern a rebuttal...i am refuting the ignorance of the argument not introducing a new argument.

you are just a plan "tard" sans the fun action noted.

Subbie, Mr. Self apparently recognized the risk of his having access to firearms as he battled depression and made moves to mitigate the risk. That he found other means to commit a violent act at his lowest moments doesn't mean his own cognition of the risk firearms presented should be dismissed. You argue some other set of circumstances can always be hypothesized resulting in some other outcome which could then be judged subjectively better than the actual result. And if a person could always postulate conditions where having access to firearms would result in something better still in someone's subjective view we are incapable of making a value judgement.

This is just you trying to manipulate this story into a debate about hypotheticals. Mr. Self appears to have understood something you can't bring yourself to come to terms with when it comes to the inherent risk of firearm access when a person cannot maintain a responsible stance towards them. As for the rest of your attempt to obfuscate, the calculus always pencils out as Event You Reported On = Tragedy.

[_canpakes]

WHY YOUR ARGUMENT IS MORE POLITICAL THAN SENSIBLE
Man allegedly leaves lunch table and drives car into restaurant, killing daughter and daughter-in-law
But in recent months, Self had been wrestling with mental illness, Austin Rammell, a pastor at Venture Church, told WSOC. A family friend for 16 years, he told the station Self was beset by anxiety, depression, and mental breakdowns. Sometimes he would go days without leaving his bed, Rammell said.

‘‘He’s been taking precautions. He had all the guns removed from his house, so he was making steps that were rational steps.’’

Now, please, explain to us all how "at least only 2 died" is your acceptable and reasonable argument; and be sure to explain your partisan math on how 2 dead must surely be better than 12 dead. Because if "acceptable losses" is your position, then I can use the same position with regards to supporting less gun regulation.

subs, the problem here is yours alone. Aside from the irony of your having presented a flawed politicized argument as opposed to a sensible one in the midst of your accusation of same, there was no broad claim that 2 dead is ‘better’ than 12.

However, I believe that it can be agreed that it is preferable that only 2 folks died in this situation, as opposed to 12, just as it would have been preferable that only one died instead of two, or that none died at all.

The concept here is simple. But perhaps you feel differently and cannot explain why you would have no preferences as to the eventual number of dead; please feel free to lay out your argument as to why that is so.

[_subgenius]

subs, the problem here is yours alone. Aside from the irony of your having presented a flawed politicized argument as opposed to a sensible one in the midst of your accusation of same, there was no broad claim that 2 dead is ‘better’ than 12.

Incorrect, that is one of the fundamental justifications for Assault weapon bans...and a claim you will make in your next quote.

However, I believe that it can be agreed that it is preferable that only 2 folks died in this situation, as opposed to 12, just as it would have been preferable that only one died instead of two, or that none died at all.

You are, ironically, asserting the acceptable losses argument whereas though zero is best it is still better to have only lost 2 instead of 12.

The concept here is simple. But perhaps you feel differently and cannot explain why you would have no preferences as to the eventual number of dead; please feel free to lay out your argument as to why that is so.

I do have a preference...zero being the only preferable circumstance, that 2 is not "better" than 12 regardless of circumstances...in fact, 1, 2, or 20 is the same in either of these circumstances. Therefore, in these 2 instances the severity of the tragedy is mitigated by quantity - the weapon is completely irrelevant.

As a digression - For some reason I am reminded of the Tylenol poisonings from 1982...7 people dead, tragic and terrifying. Also led to copycats, like the Encaprin and Excedrin poisonings.

The solution was not a ban of Tylenol nor a ban of OTC medicines. Now granted this is a different circumstance but the underlying notion is the same, the motivation and action were the crime not the implements used to carry out the crime (tylenol and cyanide remain legal (a.k.a. not-banned) to this day).

[_Morley]

Huh? by what measure is 2 dead better than 12 dead? This seems to be an equivalent "not good" condition. I mean let us assume that all the people involved are "good and innocent"...what if the 2 were octogenarians and the 12 were toddlers?

Your position makes no sense....i mean, i liked the movie Saving Private Ryan for the cinematography and compelling story...but many people would agree that the 8 dead was better than the 1 dead.

1. It is not logical.
2. It is based on a narrow emotional perspective.
1+2 = party platform.

In other words, if "some" deaths are acceptable then that quantity is arbitrary...in other 2 vs 12 can not be determined to be "better" without introducing subjective and arbitrary measures for how it is "better". Therefore, if asserting that a gun regulation is "better" because it would result in 2 deaths instead of 12 deaths then the same can be argued with regards to gun regulation whereas 12 deaths is a better consequence than the consequence of not having the rights afforded by the 2nd amendment.

Ha! Thank you, subgenius. I have to say, with this post you exceeded my wildest expectations.

I would love to see some of the buildings you've designed.

[_subgenius]

Ha! Thank you, subgenius. I have to say, with this post you exceeded my wildest expectations.

Well, dog&pony is kinda how i make my money.

I would love to see some of the buildings you've designed.

Help yourself, here are some better projects from my portfolio of the past almost score of years.
http://www.mccleskey.com

I am particularly proud of Ascension in Miami



Also fond of:

Flint Michigan (Koegel family)
Pittsburgh (Donahue family) - even designed the solid marble altar on this one (weighs about 27k lbs)

however, i regret that the actual tower in santa rosa pre-dates my tenure.

[_canpakes]

subs, the problem here is yours alone. Aside from the irony of your having presented a flawed politicized argument as opposed to a sensible one in the midst of your accusation of same, there was no broad claim that 2 dead is ‘better’ than 12.

Incorrect, that is one of the fundamental justifications for Assault weapon bans...and a claim you will make in your next quote.

Nope. The argument to limit casualties does not seek to happily place an approval on, say, single-digit casualty rates vs. double-digit rates. You are purposefully distorting that argument, which focuses instead on minimizing the ease of accumulating casualties in these sorts of events.

However, I believe that it can be agreed that it is preferable that only 2 folks died in this situation, as opposed to 12, just as it would have been preferable that only one died instead of two, or that none died at all.

You are, ironically, asserting the acceptable losses argument whereas though zero is best it is still better to have only lost 2 instead of 12.

Not correct. There is no assertion of an ‘acceptable’ loss when one states a preference. There isn’t even an assertion of an acceptable loss when one asserts that one quantity would be ‘better’ than another. You are introducing a second bad assumption/argument on to your first. That is neither better nor preferable. ; )

The concept here is simple. But perhaps you feel differently and cannot explain why you would have no preferences as to the eventual number of dead; please feel free to lay out your argument as to why that is so.

I do have a preference...zero being the only preferable circumstance, that 2 is not "better" than 12 regardless of circumstances...in fact, 1, 2, or 20 is the same in either of these circumstances. Therefore, in these 2 instances the severity of the tragedy is mitigated by quantity - the weapon is completely irrelevant.

Repeating the same bad assertion does not make your argument any better. Nor does it disprove that firearms have proven to be quite efficient in taking lives in mass killings, in a way that vehicles (nor most other everyday objects) cannot match.

Unless, say, maybe you believe that the Las Vegas Shooter could have killed more folks more efficiently by driving a car out of his hotel window and on to the crowd below and far away, a la Dukes of Hazzard style.

[_Morley]

Ha! Thank you, subgenius. I have to say, with this post you exceeded my wildest expectations.

Well, dog&pony is kinda how i make my money.

Indeed. It's nice to see you admit it. From your assertion that there's no evidence for the holocaust, to your homophobic jibes, to your complaint about your eating disorder and your youtube channel, to your latest incoherent post--I would agree that they're all dog and pony shows.

They're also all terribly at odds with the beautiful buildings you've designed. I'm reminded that we're all incredibly complicated humans.

Help yourself, here are some better projects from my portfolio of the past almost score of years.
http://www.mccleskey.com

I am particularly proud of Ascension in Miami


Also fond of:
Flint Michigan (Koegel family)
Pittsburgh (Donahue family) - even designed the solid marble altar on this one (weighs about 27k lbs)
however, i regret that the actual tower in santa rosa pre-dates my tenure.

I followed your link. Thank you, Good Sir, for the chance to look at a little of your portfolio. These projects are stunning. Congratulations!

[_Jersey Girl]

Very impressive work, subgenius.

[_subgenius]

Ha! Thank you, subgenius. I have to say, with this post you exceeded my wildest expectations.

Well, dog&pony is kinda how i make my money.

Indeed. It's nice to see you admit it.

From your assertion that there's no evidence for the holocaust, to your homophobic jibes,

Challenging people's presuppositions, prejudices, and assumptions often are confused with holding particular views. As with my profession, most people take the reality of their physical and constructed world for granted....indeed, it usually seems perfectly natural.

to your complaint about your eating disorder and your youtube channel,

Not sure this is me? but I will take it for how it is intended.

to your latest incoherent post--I would agree that they're all dog and pony shows.

I am working on that...my verbal dog is usually buttressed by the graphic/imagery pony.

They're also all terribly at odds with the beautiful buildings you've designed. I'm reminded that we're all incredibly complicated humans.

Yes, I am often entertained by how many of us resist that complexity and strive for a homogenized lowest common denominator lifestyle.

I followed your link. Thank you, Good Sir, for the chance to look at a little of your portfolio. These projects are stunning. Congratulations!

Thank you and you are kind, and I assure you that the "stunning" is the result of many many hands - which is the most amazing spectacle for me.