Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Doro

The Rage Corner

Recommended Posts

So your contention is you've never met a person with a carry/conceal who wasn't ok with the idea of walking into a church, or mall or any public area and just start shooting people. Also that you've never met anyone that handles their gun responsibly.

Sorry, I call bullshit.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spiteful said:

So your contention is you've never met a person with a carry/conceal who wasn't ok with the idea of walking into a church, or mall or any public area and just start shooting people. Also that you've never met anyone that handles their gun responsibly.

Sorry, I call bullshit.

 

Call it BS all you like.  That is my experience on the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mtones said:

There would not be enough time to explain it to you.  And saying that people who carry guns have no intention of using them is an oxymoronic rationalization the NRA is only all too fond of shoving down people's throats here.  In my nearly 30 years of working in social services in this country, often in collaboration with law enforcement and community based agencies, I have never once met a "responsible gun owner" as the NRA likes to call them, let alone someone with a CCDW license in particular who wasn't perfectly comfortable with idea of blowing any one, any where, away.

Shouldn't you be dead according to your own statement?

The law enforcement you collaborated with were unarmed? Or responsible?

Since there are many millions of gun owners and you have never met one who is responsible you either lead a very lucky life or these people were in fact responsible and simply didn't act as you have expected...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fittybolger said:

Shouldn't you be dead according to your own statement?

The law enforcement you collaborated with were unarmed? Or responsible?

Since there are many millions of gun owners and you have never met one who is responsible you either lead a very lucky life or these people were in fact responsible and simply didn't act as you have expected...

 

Heh. Yes actually, I should be dead considering I have been shot on the job, but was fortunate enough to have not been fatally injured.    As for the rest of your comments, they are off the mark.  If you have not worked in a field where you have to deal with these types of people on a regular basis, you won't exactly have the same frame of reference.   Disagree if you will.  Doesn't change anything for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mtones said:

In my nearly 30 years of working in social services in this country... I have never once met a "responsible gun owner" as the NRA likes to call them...

Shouldn't that be the case? Surely responsibly gun owners don't require social services?

4 hours ago, mtones said:

... but was fortunate enough to have not been fatally injured.

For a minute, I was slightly concerned that this site had become an ouija board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mtones said:

There would not be enough time to explain it to you.  And saying that people who carry guns have no intention of using them is an oxymoronic rationalization the NRA is only all too fond of shoving down people's throats here.  In my nearly 30 years of working in social services in this country, often in collaboration with law enforcement and community based agencies, I have never once met a "responsible gun owner" as the NRA likes to call them, let alone someone with a CCDW license in particular who wasn't perfectly comfortable with idea of blowing any one, any where, away.

There's between 100-150 million gun owners in America, depending on if you look at individual gun owners or households with guns. I do not think a 'vast majority have a very obvious mindset' like you say. Or, at least, have the mindset that they are comfortable with the idea of blowing anyone anywhere away. I don't doubt a certain criminal element has that mindset but the "vast majority"? Sorry, calling bullshit as well. Of the gun owners I know (and I'm Canadian so don't know all that many but have some US friends that own guns) none of them have the mindset you attribute to the vast majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your issue is my using the terms " vast majority" because you have "some US friends that own guns."  Call BS all you like.  Doesn't change my experience over this many years or my view.  That you seem so offended by it is your problem.  Fact remains, encouraging people to use their guns in this country IS NOT the answer to an already huge gun problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mtones said:

So your issue is my using the terms " vast majority" because you have "some US friends that own guns."  Call BS all you like.  Doesn't change my experience over this many years or my view.  That you seem so offended by it is your problem.  Fact remains, encouraging people to use their guns in this country IS NOT the answer to an already huge gun problem.

Surely if the vast majority have such a mindset, the rate of shootings would be much higher?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I get the ouija board reference exactly.... also not sure how social services work in UK, as here it is a pretty broad range of work.  Mine has been limited in child and adult protective services, drug rehabilitation programs, and victim services advocacy through the district attorney's office.  The jurisdiction for all these programs cross with law enforcement collaboration, and yes do frequently mean we are talking about dealing people that have been abused or injured by others that have engaged in illegal and criminal behavior.  There are many other areas of services.  To assume gun owners do not need the services themselves is rather short sighted however.  I have worked with many a family who lost a child for example, to a father or mother that owned a gun.  That parent was also in need of help, despite believing themselves "responsible." Such people rarely ever assume s/he has done anything wrong or other than exercising his/her constitutional right, so the issue is not what you or I or the NRA deem responsible, but how the owner him/herself thinks of it - which is what is at the heart of the problem with the idea of owning and using guns as a private citizen in the first place here, an attitude in Americans you yourself above basically discussed as being problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Doro said:

Surely if the vast majority have such a mindset, the rate of shootings would be much higher?

I think the rate of shootings in this country speaks for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is because California is like "Escape from New York"....all the responsible people left along time ago.....:P

As a Idaho resident and gun owner I have never once had the urge to shoot up a church or school.
Add me to the list of "responsible" gun owners that you have never met.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Spiteful said:

You said Super Markets, Wal-Mart is not a super market, My reply to what you wrote is correct, you didn't mention Dept. Stores or "Big Box" dtores which are different.

 

Here's a study that looks at 2006/2011

53% of mass shooting incidents began as a domestic issue.

A supermarket is a large self serving store that sell food and house hold goods, that is what Wal-Mart does, there for it is a supermarket.  You can call it a hypermarket or superstore but that is just the same thing.

That report is on mass killing, not mass shooting.  While many of the cases are shooting, not all were.  Also a mass shooting does not mean any deaths have occurred, only that 4 or more people have been injured or killed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mtones said:

Not sure I get the ouija board reference exactly.... also not sure how social services work in UK, as here it is a pretty broad range of work.  Mine has been limited in child and adult protective services, drug rehabilitation programs, and victim services advocacy through the district attorney's office.  The jurisdiction for all these programs cross with law enforcement collaboration, and yes do frequently mean we are talking about dealing people that have been abused or injured by others that have engaged in illegal and criminal behavior.  There are many other areas of services.  To assume gun owners do not need the services themselves is rather short sighted however.  I have worked with many a family who lost a child for example, to a father or mother that owned a gun.  That parent was also in need of help, despite believing themselves "responsible." Such people rarely ever assume s/he has done anything wrong or other than exercising his/her constitutional right, so the issue is not what you or I or the NRA deem responsible, but how the owner him/herself thinks of it - which is what is at the heart of the problem with the idea of owning and using guns as a private citizen in the first place here, an attitude in Americans you yourself above basically discussed as being problematic.

The Ouija board thing was just a joke. You said your injury was non fatal, which would mean if it weren't then you were typing 'from the other side'.

Yeah... it seems your work does limit you in regards to the sort of gun owners you're going to meet. I wasn't assuming gun owners don't use it, I was saying responsible ones probably don't because of the very nature of the services involved. I suspect prison wardens also encounter more criminals than most, it doesn't make the majority of people criminals either.

1 hour ago, mtones said:

I think the rate of shootings in this country speaks for itself.

Well from what I've seen, there's about 90 million gun owners in the US. There are 30,000 deaths by firearms and about 85,000 injuries by firearms per year (so let's say 115,000 incidents). That includes the suicides, the accidents, the suspect shootings by cops (though cop killings are excluded, not sure why). Even assuming that's a different gun owner for every incident, that's only 0.1% of gun owners using their weapons to injure or kill someone a year. And the likelihood is they aren't all separate individuals.

So your claim doesn't really hold much weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mtones said:

I think the rate of shootings in this country speaks for itself.

Naw, it really doesn't, as Doro mentions. The vast vast majority of gun owners don't go around blowing away anyone anywhere like you think they do or have that as their motive.

I used the example of people I know who have guns not having that mindset as a counterpoint to your example that you'd never once met a responsible gun owner and then going on to say a vast majority have a certain "obvious" mindset of wanting to blow away anyone anywhere. I don't doubt it will not change your experience or your view.

Just pointing out that your claims are pure bullshit. If even 10% of gun owners (let alone a vast majority like you claim) shot and killed someone once per year there'd be 25,000 gun deaths a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the biggest problem is the large number of people that cant see the link between more guns and more gun deaths.  Just listen to the NRA after every mass shooting, they always say if only the victims had guns they would of been safe.  If only teachers had guns they could stop the children being murdered.  

If you look at other countries that increased restrictions on guns and seen a fall in gun deaths surely it must be clear that is the way to go.

Anyway the solution is simple let people have as many gins as they want just ban the sale or ammunition.  That way people can still bare arms but the general public is a lot safer.  Or perhaps the right to bare arms is just the right to ware sleeveless clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FundinStrongarm said:

Naw, it really doesn't, as Doro mentions. The vast vast majority of gun owners don't go around blowing away anyone anywhere like you think they do or have that as their motive.

I used the example of people I know who have guns not having that mindset as a counterpoint to your example that you'd never once met a responsible gun owner and then going on to say a vast majority have a certain "obvious" mindset of wanting to blow away anyone anywhere. I don't doubt it will not change your experience or your view.

Just pointing out that your claims are pure bullshit. If even 10% of gun owners (let alone a vast majority like you claim) shot and killed someone once per year there'd be 25,000 gun deaths a day.

You seem to be confusing my views and then accusing me of claiming something I did not.  I never said the vast majority of gun owners blow people away.  I said very clearly I believe the vast majority hold a certain mindset.  You got issues with me making a generalization based on my experience with criminals.  Yet just like you, criminals are not the only people I know with guns.  That aside, to further clarify, it is my view that people who buy, own, and especially the ones with CCDW rights to carry them do so because they predicate the need to have them to begin with on a certain set of beliefs in the first place --- beliefs which when put to the test, have proven all too often lead to deaths.  You call all that bullshit. OK.  No worries, that makes little difference to me.  I know what I see, and what I see is people in this country sticking their heads up their asses on this issue because they are so busy upholding their "god given right" to be Johnny-Law when it suits them.  Call it bullshit again.  Stats DO speak for themselves - this country has more shootings on a given day that any nation in the world, it doesn't need to be 25K a day for my point to be made.

Furthermore, considering the government ban making it illegal for the CDC to even research the impact of gun violence on communities for well over a decade now, fuck knows what the numbers really are at this point.  You cannot limit gun violence to just death from guns, which are bad enough.  There are a plethora of other issues at work around this, which represent a systemic problem in all communities where guns surface.

All this said, nice chatting with ya'll I am outta here for holiday trip.  Be well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cossieuk said:

A supermarket is a large self serving store that sell food and house hold goods, that is what Wal-Mart does, there for it is a supermarket.  You can call it a hypermarket or superstore but that is just the same thing.

That report is on mass killing, not mass shooting.  While many of the cases are shooting, not all were.  Also a mass shooting does not mean any deaths have occurred, only that 4 or more people have been injured or killed.  

No one calls Wal-Mart a super market. A super market is a grocery store that will have an aisle dedicated to house hold cleaners etc. Stores like Wal-Mart are considered discount, department, big box, etc type stores where there is no focus on a class of items like groceries. Since the advent of Wal-Mart's super centers they really have just become Wal-Mart as they've become more expansive than say like a JC Penny or Target.

It's all semantics I suppose but if you are in America and say your going to the super market to buy a gun people are gonna look at you funny and have no idea what you're talking about.

Obviously you didn't read through the study because it has the tools to pull out gun numbers and type of shooting such as Public, Family etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mtones said:

You seem to be confusing my views and then accusing me of claiming something I did not.  I never said the vast majority of gun owners blow people away.  I said very clearly I believe the vast majority hold a certain mindset.  You got issues with me making a generalization based on my experience with criminals.  Yet just like you, criminals are not the only people I know with guns.  That aside, to further clarify, it is my view that people who buy, own, and especially the ones with CCDW rights to carry them do so because they predicate the need to have them to begin with on a certain set of beliefs in the first place --- beliefs which when put to the test, have proven all too often lead to deaths.  You call all that bullshit. OK.  No worries, that makes little difference to me.  I know what I see, and what I see is people in this country sticking their heads up their asses on this issue because they are so busy upholding their "god given right" to be Johnny-Law when it suits them.  Call it bullshit again.  Stats DO speak for themselves - this country has more shootings on a given day that any nation in the world, it doesn't need to be 25K a day for my point to be made.

Furthermore, considering the government ban making it illegal for the CDC to even research the impact of gun violence on communities for well over a decade now, fuck knows what the numbers really are at this point.  You cannot limit gun violence to just death from guns, which are bad enough.  There are a plethora of other issues at work around this, which represent a systemic problem in all communities where guns surface.

All this said, nice chatting with ya'll I am outta here for holiday trip.  Be well.

These are your words:

the LAST thing we need to be doing here, especially if you are in LAW ENFORCEMENT, is to encourage the people to carry their god-given firearms  - considering the very obvious mindset of the vast majority of people who carry them, let alone the ones who are only too happy to use them....

When challenged on that claim you said:

I have never once met a "responsible gun owner" as the NRA likes to call them, let alone someone with a CCDW license in particular who wasn't perfectly comfortable with idea of blowing any one, any where, away.

And further said the following that supposedly supported your claims:

I think the rate of shootings in this country speaks for itself.

If you want to talk about rate of gun deaths or whether the CDC should investigate certain issues, go for it. Sounds like maybe an interesting discussion. I just think the obvious super-hyperbole on what the vast majority of gun owners have as a mindset - a mindset where you claim they're willing to blow anyone anywhere away - ain't gonna cut it when it is so obviously and completely wrong. If you want to fall back on this being your own experience that's fine but sweeping generalizations won't get you far.

The vast majority of gun owners in the US are law abiding people with no overriding urge to do anything more than be left alone, just like most people.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cossieuk said:

For the biggest problem is the large number of people that cant see the link between more guns and more gun deaths.  Just listen to the NRA after every mass shooting, they always say if only the victims had guns they would of been safe.  If only teachers had guns they could stop the children being murdered.  

If you look at other countries that increased restrictions on guns and seen a fall in gun deaths surely it must be clear that is the way to go.

Anyway the solution is simple let people have as many gins as they want just ban the sale or ammunition.  That way people can still bare arms but the general public is a lot safer.  Or perhaps the right to bare arms is just the right to ware sleeveless clothes.

The funny thing is that both sides are doing the same thing. NRA say more guns means more people protecting themselves. Anti-gunners are saying less guns means less people being shot. Both sides are saying that the other is wrong and that only their assumption is valid. Both are technically correct. But one is leaning towards the chance for people to protect themselves, and the other is leaning towards trying to prevent criminals getting weapons. When it comes to the US, both are required.

6 hours ago, Spiteful said:

No one calls Wal-Mart a super market.

No one calls Orcas dolphins, but they are. I looked it up, turns out that Wal-Mart is classified as a 'hypermarket', which is a supermarket and a department store all in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if semantics are a must...

A hypermarket, there's another term not used, is not a supermarket, it has a supermarket inside it and they don't sell weapons in the supermarket section....

Also only Wal-Mart Super Centers have a supermarket inside, regular Wal-Marts don't.

The entire 2nd Amendment argument boils down to is the Right stated collective or individual. Honestly it wouldn't even be an argument if it wasn't for incorporation. The original intent was clearly the Fed can make no firearms laws, and if you follow the original intent only the States can make those laws, which is how it should be.

Heller dealt with an entirely different issue even though people like to use it as an example. Though I like the outcome of Miller, I'm not convinced it was the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spiteful said:

Ok if semantics are a must...

A hypermarket, there's another term not used, is not a supermarket, it has a supermarket inside it and they don't sell weapons in the supermarket section....

Also only Wal-Mart Super Centers have a supermarket inside, regular Wal-Marts don't.

It seems you only believe that because you yourself don't use the term. But it seems Wal-mart does.

"Walmart Supercenters, branded as simply "Walmart", are hypermarkets with size varying from 98,000 to 261,000 square feet (9,104.5 to 24,247.7 m2), with an average of about 197,000 square feet (18,301.9 m2)."

So when Cossie said: "Up until very recently you could buy an AR 15 in Walmart, which we in the UK would refer to as a supermarket." he was correct. The only semantics has been on your part, so it's odd that you'd imply it was anyone else.

 

7 hours ago, Spiteful said:

The entire 2nd Amendment argument boils down to is the Right stated collective or individual. Honestly it wouldn't even be an argument if it wasn't for incorporation. The original intent was clearly the Fed can make no firearms laws, and if you follow the original intent only the States can make those laws, which is how it should be.

Heller dealt with an entirely different issue even though people like to use it as an example. Though I like the outcome of Miller, I'm not convinced it was the right decision.

Well, the original intent was to allow the populace to keep itself armed to prevent oppression from other nations or their own government. Which is to be expected, considering the sort of time it was written. Clearly, they weren't soothsayers, so the entire concept is outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Doro said:

It seems you only believe that because you yourself don't use the term. But it seems Wal-mart does.

"Walmart Supercenters, branded as simply "Walmart", are hypermarkets with size varying from 98,000 to 261,000 square feet (9,104.5 to 24,247.7 m2), with an average of about 197,000 square feet (18,301.9 m2)."

So when Cossie said: "Up until very recently you could buy an AR 15 in Walmart, which we in the UK would refer to as a supermarket." he was correct. The only semantics has been on your part, so it's odd that you'd imply it was anyone else.

 

Well, the original intent was to allow the populace to keep itself armed to prevent oppression from other nations or their own government. Which is to be expected, considering the sort of time it was written. Clearly, they weren't soothsayers, so the entire concept is outdated.

I didn't argue about Wal-Mart selling guns, because they do. You quoted a later post from Cossie, the quote from the post that began this is:

"In the US you cant buy a Kinder Surprise yet you can buy a AR 15 in a Super Market."
 

After he clarified about Wal-Mart being referred to as a supermarket in the UK, I wasn't clear that in America Wal-Mart is not referred to as a supermarket. One of those things where biscuits mean different things in different countries, I suppose.


There is more to the intent then that, though, of course, protection was part of it. While the Framers may not have been soothsayers, they were very forward thinking and very knowledgeable about the evolution of governments, especially centralized government, which goes, in part, to the Constitution only applying to the Federal Government and not the States. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd is also meant to contain the Fed and as warning system of  centralized over-reach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2015 at 7:01 AM, Doro said:

There are people in this world that you wouldn't even feel bad for if they died. Some of them you wouldn't feel bad for causing it. This cunt is one of them.

I'm sure many people in the US are already aware of him, but he's really only just caught my attention. This waste of life is Martin Shkreli; a slimy little shit that bought a drugs company and then hiked up the price of the life-saving medication it produce from something like $14 per tablet to $750 per tablet. His excuses? Well, they're all weak as shit.

First he starts off saying it's for R&D to make a better version of the drug to combat toxoplasmosis. They NEED the 5000%+ increase to save lives. Bollocks do they. I looked it up. There are around 60 million people living with the parasitic disease. Most have a stable enough immune system to fight it off despite being infected, which is why the majority of people who actually display symptoms and suffer from it are babies and people with diseases like AIDS. Out of those 60 million, there are only 750 deaths per year. That's 0.001% of people with the disease who die from it. Even assuming it's just AIDS sufferers who take the drug and they are infected at the same rate (20%), then around 300,000 AIDS sufferers have the disease and need the medication. That's 0.25% of people die from it a year. This shit really thinks we need a better drug than one with higher than 99% success rate?

Second, he tries to deflect the problem. He says things like 'this other drug costs way more' as if that means they should be allowed to charge just as much. If other companies get to fuck over their customers, why can't we?! Because, you moronic sack of bile, it is fucking inhuman to charge so much money for people to try to live when YOU DO NOT NEED TO. You are copying the soulless behaviour of other companies and expecting no one to criticise you for it?

And continuing that, his third attempt was to say that it needs to turn a profit. Really? 60 year old tablet, that seems to have survived just fine as is, suddenly needs a massive price increase to keep the company going? Bollocks does it. GSK here in the UK sells the exact same shit at $20 for 30 FUCKING TABLETS. 30 of the bastards. That's 66 cents EACH. The same tablet he claims requires a fucking $750 price per tablet just to produce with very little profit is being sold at 0.09% of the price. You're literally making hundreds of dollars of profit per tablet for yourself.

It's a fucking sickening irony that a person that sells drugs to prevent a parasitic disease is a fucking parasite himself.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/turing-ceo-martin-shkreli-in-custody-after-securities-probe-1.2704068

I hope there is a "graceful", 6'8" cellmate going by the name "Animal" in his future... and they lived happily ever after... at least Animal did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait with champagne will he actually get's put in jail. I am sure he has preety expensive lawyers working around the clock atm for him to avoid actual jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...