Batman Shooting
POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Monday, August 13, 2012 04:15
VIEWED: 47539
PAGE 14 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll
I have to say this new site puzzles me. I'm beginning to notice that sometimes posts don't show up for hours while later posts show up right away. I didn't see your post w/ the receipt until I went to your 'name', and clicked on your posts one by each.
So yes, you're right - I didn't respond to that one. I apologize.
SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.
Apology accepted.
Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just a thought, Wish. You don't seem to grasp that it's possible to DO whatever is necessary to protect people from maniacs with guns, but at the same time have compassion for them as human beings. No hugs, no kumbaya, do whatever we have to do to keep society safe from them, but not dehumanize them. Hate and dehumanization do nothing to improve society's sanity.
The other thing is that it costs a LOT more to clean up after a mess such as Aurora than it does to put some money and effort into recognizing people with problems and trying to deal with them in a way that is other than tossing them away...unless you're advocating killing any and all who MIGHT turn out to be like this guy. The mentally-disabled can be helped, and many of us can go on to be CONTRIBUTING members of society--I was, and if I'd had the knowledge, treatment and meds earlier, I would still be today. That is true of the vast majority of us. Locking us up because of what we "might" do, or just forcing meds down our throats, will only create further drain on society, as well as making more of what happened in Aurora happen.
Also, your view seems to be incredibly simplistic and weird to me. Do you have any idea what the percentage of successful "not guilty by reason of insanity" please there are? Very, very, VERY few, look it up. Rarely does anyone get off by virtue of their mental defects. You really think a photo of a murderer hugging a bunny would melt ANYONE? THAT is truly insane to me!
Just the example of what's happening to Penn State in the aftermath of discovering the child abuse should show you that nobody "mollycoddles" child abusers...where you get your views escapes me, you seem to see all of society as laying down and rolling over for perpetrators, when in actuality it's precisely the opposite!
How you get your view that the "general public" is accountable for things like Aurora defeats me. It's police who put people in jail, juries and judges who put them in prison and put them to death, and the "general public's" outrage about these atrocities is by far less "huggy" than otherwise. You seem to see everyone but yourself as a schmuck, which I find strange.
Perps are let out of prison because of prison overcrowding far more than because of any "hugginess"...so what's your answer? Build more prisons on the taxpayer's dollar and let the taxpayer pay for the upkeep of criminals for the rest of their lives? More for-profit prisons? What's YOUR solution?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There was a recent "Through the Wormhole" about the nature of evil and whether it could be eliminated, which I just watched. It was quite fascinating. One neuroscientist was working on experiments in stimulating the region of the brain believed to be the center of altruism, making test subjects more willing to compromise. Another was developing a "frontal lobe gym" to train people to be better at impulse control through the use of biofeedback on what their brains were doing. A third scientist had studied the brains of psychopaths, found a distinct pattern in their anatomy, and was speculating on whether these people were always criminals and killers until he came to find out he, himself, had the very same brain anatomy. Apparently he is very driven and can be manipulative, but he isn't a killer because he was raised in a good environment. He also believes that there might be ways to turn the inactive areas of the brain on again. It was all very, very interesting. Even more interesting in the face of this event. This guy was a neuroscience student. I wonder how many of his classmates finished reeling from the shock and then thought, "Wow, wonder what his brain activity is like."
(This was also an extremely weird and terrible way for me to find out that there's a very prestigious neuroscience program in my home state, but I might have to look into it.)
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was going to respond regarding my experiences in the mental health field. But I figured, why should I bother? Any of you who are using that comment as an angle to attack me aren't interested. To those who are interested in attacking, screw all of you.
The courts, all the way to SCOTUS have handed down decisions that state that the police have no duty to protect you from harm. DOJs own statistics show that at BEST, police response to an assault call is 5 minutes. What can happen to you in 5 minutes?
If the police aren't obliged to protect you, then who are you going to rely on?
Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
I was going to respond regarding my experiences in the mental health field. But I figured, why should I bother? Any of you who are using that comment as an angle to attack me aren't interested. To those who are interested in attacking, screw all of you.
Oh boo-freaking-hoo, ya big baby.
Funny that you'd be whining so much about being "attacked" given what you've chosen for your signature here.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So far in the media, I've heard people try to blame the idea of wearing masks/costumes to movies, and now I even heard someone wondering if maybe this guy should have been able to amass such an arsenal while living on student loans and grants, which makes me wonder how long it will be before the financial aid for students is under attack for this.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under
threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two
categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the
personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use
reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your
threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on
equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal
footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal
footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun
removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a
potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more
civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes
it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by
choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a
mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a
civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a
successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force
monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come
out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not
the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would
not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and
easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but
because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I
cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions
of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of
those who would do so by force. It removes force from the
equation. And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
Kwindbago, hot air and angry electrons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As usual, Troll, you reflect the typical pro-gun advocate's mentality: All or nothing. Has anyone HERE said anything about doing away with guns? Some of us might like to, but we recognize the illogicality of such a wish. So what you posted is totally irrelevant, as it is a debate point against nobody.
The thing some people would like, realistically, is SOME gun restrictions, like on semi-automatic weapons, high-yield magazines, the ease with which such things are obtained, stuff like that. See if you can grasp it in big letters:
NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE GUNS IN AMERICA. Can you understand that? Try to think of it on a nice long line. At one end is "NO GUNS", at the other is "EVERYONE CAN HAVE ANY GUN THEY WANT". There's this space in the middle, see, that's where some of us are. Care to join us?
I might have some arguments about what is stated in your quote, but it's immaterial, since nobody is arguing that we should take away people's guns...that useful little sound byte the NRA finds so excellently effective in ginning you guys up.
So if you want to post something that might have validity to the gun issue, try posting something relevant. Or not. 'Sup to you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, Mike, along with all--I mean ALL--those voices out there saying this is the "wrong time" to be discussing--excuse me, POLITICIZING--the issue of guns. I actually heard one guy say it was OFFENSIVE to the American People to even talk about it "now". Gawd help my country.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME