scotland golf map | Arborex und der Geheimbund KIMFolge 20: Der Schatz im Klosterbrunnen Audiobook | Maroon 5 Girls Like You Ft Cardi B

In today's news...


Apr 3, 2018
788
93

-(Faster) death penalty so mass shooters who are so very afraid to die will be killed.
-More guns for less shootings because good guys don't shoot innocent people.

Journalists definitively cut Trump speeches just to make him appear stupid while he his actually a genius politician with an incredibly beautiful haircut. They should just have have shown that Trump acknowledges the shooting happened and that the shooter must be punished.

:poop:
 
Aug 29, 2016
946
93

-(Faster) death penalty so mass shooters who are so very afraid to die will be killed.
-More guns for less shootings because good guys don't shoot innocent people.

Journalists definitively cut Trump speeches just to make him appear stupid while he his actually a genius politician with an incredibly beautiful haircut. They should just have have shown that Trump acknowledges the shooting happened and that the shooter must be punished.

:poop:
Ignoring the Trump vs MSM part, as it's just a competition in "who is more retarded?" with MSM winning and everyone taking part being a looser, even ones following it, from both sides.

Now, just as a note, I am responding in more of a general way than directly at anyone, do not get confused.
http://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ss-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news...walmart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9ada56371f79
http://www.personaldefenseworld.co...an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/
http://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html

Not liking guns doesn't change the fact that having armed citizens is a method to prevent shootings, not all, not 100%, but less. Not every shooter is a suicidal psycho and many back off when held at gunpoint like a whiny bitches they are. Again, misunderstanding that every shooter is suicidal is just picking straws like crazy, some of them do want to live after that. Point is to get them out of society and forget, not talk about, because some retarded fucks with death wish hope for after-death fame. And even that fame may not be as pursued when it will end with some civilian becoming a hero and being talked about instead of shooter himself.
There are countries where getting a gun is apparently hard and illegal, like here. Problem is, if someone really wanted to, obtaining illegal firearm is not that big of a problem.

The issue doesn't come from the gun ownership, take a look at Norway, Switzerland or Czech Republic... where are those mass shootings per capita? Oh, what? Majority of gun crimes in Czech are dony by illegal guns? Same with many other countries? Well color me surprised, what a shock. Going further with this, guns do not kill people, other people kill people. Hoping that having less guns means less gun related crime is dependent on country, while in places like Japan I would agree, in USA it's not going to work and be actually opposite, deal with it. Shit, gun laws didn't stop shooters in Paris nor bombers in UK (since, you know, guns and bombs are illegal?).
So why is murica so different? Well, very simple, majority of that country is apparently composed out of uncivilized animals where it should be other way around. Fix society, the source of the issue, not the symptoms.
Seriously, some people need to do their research rather than shooting without thinking.
Simple question? Would you go on a murdering spree if someone gave you a free, untraceable gun? No? Congratulations, you are your own counter-argument. If your answer is different, please visit nearest police station and tell them about it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2009
1,462
63
I'm from the UK and our stringent gun control laws of course ensure that our criminal elements are completely unarmed and nice people that ask your permission to rob you, which of course you are obliged to allow as resistance is violence and violence is illegal!

America should needs to get over it's firearm addiction and have a prohibition on firearms.
 
Apr 3, 2018
788
93
Just saying--in case that it wasn't obvious--that was a shitpost.
Also, being against more guns is not being against guns. Bringing NRA arguments in a debate mentioning guns generally means you're biased and believe rather than understand what you say.

As for mass shooters, they should be aware of the risk of death when they plan their killing. You can thus rule out the death penalty as a mean of dissuasion for them.
Instead, give the death penalty to car thieves (bad idea BTW form the POV of human rights but that's just an example) and there will be significantly less car thieves. But mass shooters that believes themselves to be soldiers for some obscure cause? Nah, not dissuaded much by the risk of death. Death penalty is meant as a dissuasion, not as a punishment, because offenders won't learn from their mistakes: they'll just die. It's easy to rouse an angry mob after mass killings with death penalty--even I believe I should scream "kill this fucker". But that doesn't mean it's the solution, or even a solution at all.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2016
946
93
Just saying--in case that it wasn't obvious--that was a shitpost.
Really? We're going to do this now? Fine.
Also, being against more guns is not being against guns. Bringing NRA arguments in a debate mentioning guns generally means you're biased and believe rather than understand what you say.
Well then, I guess NRA uses same arguments as I do, good for them, considering I do not care to know their arguments, not US citizen, not my institution or whatever they are. And of course this is a bias, there isn't such thing as unbiased human, again, pulling out straws here. To continue with the trend, I stated quite clearly that it wasn't directed at anyone and was quite a general statement, bringing more or less guns was never mentioned once by me.
However, you are trying to paint it is as "hurr durr, ya dumb, ya just repeat"... Since it's my own argument based on my own life experience and logic, this makes absolutely no sense. Let see some actual arguments rather than "you, you, you!", can we?
As for mass shooters, they should be aware of the risk of death when they plan their killing. You can thus rule out the death penalty as a mean of dissuasion for them.
Do you know what survival instinct is? Just because someone got pushed over the edge, doesn't mean in dire situation they won't snap out of it. Death penalty work and doesn't work. Some religious fanatic may not give two fucks, while emo kid having a fit - may. Again, for someone saying "hurr durr ya repeat" you don't seem to even read what others say, see, my exact words:
"Point is to get them out of society and forget, not talk about, because some retarded fucks with death wish hope for after-death fame. ". There is no scare tactics in this sentence, one you are talking about.
Instead, give the death penalty to car thieves (bad idea BTW form the POV of human rights but that's just an example) and there will be significantly less car thieves.
True, assuming it happens and is a thing, it actually may work. But yeah, just an example.
But mass shooters that believes themselves to be soldiers for some obscure cause? Nah, not dissuaded much by the risk of death. Death penalty is meant as a dissuasion, not as a punishment, because offenders won't learn from their mistakes: they'll just die. It's easy to rouse an angry mob after mass killings with death penalty--even I believe I should scream "kill this fucker". But that doesn't mean it's the solution, or even a solution at all.
Well, we are back at this, already showed you that you didn't bother to read (or understood, one of the two) what I said. Now, next part you completely skipped. Some mass shooters do what they do to get remembered or "show the world". They see media talking so much about all those fucks and they want the same. Ever heard of term copycat crime? Why do you think police doesn't want to share information about most extreme murderers out there? It's one of the reasons (other ones are related to making it harder to catch a criminal if he knows what police force is doing). This was my exact point but you turned it into expected effects of death penalty.
I am not even going to say anything about second paragraph you ignored completely.
Considering your previous post and this, I have a good reason to assume you just eat headlines without even stopping for a second to think them through or do some research into it. Try reading it all again and give it some thought instead of assuming everything based on first sentence like it's a headline.

EDIT:
I made this just in case of In today's news... - discussions
Feel free to read my OP so we can still have some comments here as not everyone wants to bother with long discussions, just leaving a post or few.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2018
788
93
You made a general point, I made a point about your reply to Trump's poor reaction to the event. Just as my post may appear as a poor reply to your post, yours has similar flaws too.

Let me get this down now. Your proposition that an idea/modus operandi will disappear--to some extent--with the prompt death of the offenders is a question for a psychiatrist/criminologist which I'm not able to refute nor approve. However I tend to believe that medias will always satisfy the citizen perverse curiosity towards "evil" wether that evil is alive or dead (or "out" to use your words), thus making even prompt death not the end of the story. That would be a very sane idea when fighting a specific ideology like ISIS' where you want to take out the heads as quickly as possible. But there isn't a headquarter of mass shooters to give ideas to copycats so the same correlation doesn't apply. I fail see more than this so I didn't said you were wrong and I am in fact neutral to your idea--not being able to refute your idea properly, not being convinced either. However Trump clearly try to rouse people with the idea of death as a punishment so I felt like I should not press you to convince me on that point because that felt like off-topic. I instead gave you my take on the topic. That may be inconsiderate and not very open-minded on my part, I admit, but I gave you my reason.

Well, I ignored the second paragraph about guns because I was more interested about death penalty. I read, I understood, but didn't bother replying because that would most likely lead to a dead end. This was not a personal attack against you. I was even surprised at how you suddenly shifted the topic to the uselessness of gun ban before that topic was brought up. If I'm going to shake your believes about guns then yes, that would be a personal attack against you. I don't know you and how you actually feel about guns but I chose to not write something that may bother you if you didn't bother me either. Now, let's do that, and see if it was better left unsaid:
Let's start with the context: in the video, Trump said the incident wouldn't have ended the same (catastrophic way?) with armed guard(s). I know that you didn't speak of that and that's kind of the issue here, stick with me until the end.

Obviously, guards defend well against attackers. An armed guard would have most likely wasted the offender.
The idea here is to have more guns to arm those guards. This is not a discussion about having less guns and you're wrong to bring the topic with that event.
However something very counter-intuitive will happen if you put guards everywhere. First, I take the bet that those guards are not perfect and can mess up very badly at an extremely low probability.
But the thing is there's also an extremely low probability of attack to each location (hopefully the US is not a battlefield).
What will happen--and was counterintuitive--is that the individual guards messing up would be close to the offender attacking a specific location. Thus the guards Trump want to place are a bad idea. The best analogy with this phenomenon would be the false positives that happens with medical tests for rare diseases.
I respect your faith in guns and chose not to speak against it. However, I don't appreciate how you "generalized" on that event.

The thing here is that Trump was more preoccupied about the good guys wining and the bad guys losing than the interest of his citizens. He tried to pass irrelevant ideas while using that specific event. He talked about what could make this incident right--with guards and quick death penalty--while oblivious his generalization could be very, very wrong.

Considering your post, it seems you are trying way too hard to be right and find fault in others.
That may be only be how I see it and not how you actually think it but that comment on gun ban as well as those sarcasms about how I didn't react to it at first too were very distasteful. You probably see some points in my reply offensive or not really bright and you are free to point them out.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2016
946
93
You made a general point, I made a point about your reply to Trump's poor reaction to the event. Just as my post may appear as a poor reply to your post, yours has similar flaws too.
First of all, my reply to Trump's poor reaction to the event? Interesting, which sentence exactly? I could as well disregard everything behind that first sentence... But, I am going paragraph by paragraph, not reading whole post before that. So, let's see where this goes.
Let me get this down now. Your proposition that an idea/modus operandi will disappear--to some extent--with the prompt death of the offenders is a question for a psychiatrist/criminologist which I'm not able to refute nor approve.
Well yeah, many of them are probably not fixable, so it's a dangerous leech on society that already showed what it is capable of. Kind of confused by putting psychiatrist next to criminologist, so I am uncertain if you meant psychologist, psychiatrist, criminologist, criminal psychologist or someone completely else. You can check out all of those fields, but I think you meant criminal psychologist in place of both you named. Now, in terms of supporting idea of quickly removing AND not talking about such cases. To keep it most simple and not going too much into both elements: fame media gives (I know, from sane person's perspective it doesn't sound like a fame, but for those fucks it is) to all those killers and shooters is a damn reward. They see it, they want it. For more refer to Albert Bandura and Nigel Barber. But without that fame and quickly removed and forgotten, there is no reward.
You don't have to approve, you do not posses enough influence to do. Neither do I. Research however shows us enough.
However I tend to believe that medias will always satisfy the citizen perverse curiosity towards "evil" wether that evil is alive or dead (or "out" to use your words), thus making even prompt death not the end of the story. That would be a very sane idea when fighting a specific ideology like ISIS' where you want to take out the heads as quickly as possible. But there isn't a headquarter of mass shooters to give ideas to copycats so the same correlation doesn't apply. I fail see more than this so I didn't said you were wrong and I am in fact neutral to your idea--not being able to refute your idea properly, not being convinced either. However Trump clearly try to rouse people with the idea of death as a punishment so I felt like I should not press you to convince me on that point because that felt like off-topic. I instead gave you my take on the topic. That may be inconsiderate and not very open-minded on my part, I admit, but I gave you my reason.
You are very correct on media perversion with such stories just to have something to shout about. This is the mentioned fame, a reward. Again, correct on removing main heads of terrorist organizations to cause chaos and speeding up removing process (which in itself is very complicated and unfortunately not as easy). You sure there isn't? You just pointed it out yourself. How do copycats learn about it? See, this is where it starts. Best outcome would be to report on topic and let it die out. Instead, many media outlets prefer to talk about it until it's completely dried out, making it of worthy reward. Or even more harsher, to media having a topic to blab about is more important than possible loss in human life. Your life, your family, my, mine family and everyone else, doesn't matter, got the story. Shit indeed.
I completely ignored that video, as with every politician, he will just say shit, just like media, two worthy morons of each other. His actions I will gladly judge, words are mainly used to gain/loss support as it is with politicians.
Again, do not care if you agree with me or not, I see an argument and if I know something about, I may agree or disagree giving counterargument, I may not even say anything depending on topic. Again x2, my first response wasn't to you directly, seems like you can't see it other way because I quoted you directly, but it is as I stated. If you want a direct response, it would be only first sentence about Trump vs MSM and then second post, then this one.
Well, I ignored the second paragraph about guns because I was more interested about death penalty. I read, I understood, but didn't bother replying because that would most likely lead to a dead end. This was not a personal attack against you. I was even surprised at how you suddenly shifted the topic to the uselessness of gun ban before that topic was brought up. If I'm going to shake your believes about guns then yes, that would be a personal attack against you. I don't know you and how you actually feel about guns but I chose to not write something that may bother you if you didn't bother me either. Now, let's do that, and see if it was better left unsaid:
Let's start with the context: in the video, Trump said the incident wouldn't have ended the same (catastrophic way?) with armed guard(s). I know that you didn't speak of that and that's kind of the issue here, stick with me until the end.
I'm fine with guns as a whole. Funny though, your holstered gun won't help when a guy with a hidden knife or similar object gets close (5-10m/16-32ft) and stabs you 20 times in the chest. Ask any prison guard. Gun laws are next to it, in some places they make sense, in some they don't, depends on country and you would have to ask about certain place, otherwise the answer will be: "depends". However, getting an illegal gun depends only on your resources, not law.
In the very end, it all traces back to each society itself. Example: In Japan lifting gun ban wouldn't be an issue with many Japanese folks, but it would help criminals that come from other countries. Funny, right?
Okay, I am going to watch that video, let's see. Okay, so it seems, as expected, he says what disgusted by the act people want to hear. Trump, as he did many times, tries to gain a controversial reaction so people talk about it. He targets here few type of communities. Is he correct about additional guards? In theory yes, as that's extra safety. In practice, there could be many issues with this idea. Okay, next we go.
Obviously, guards defend well against attackers. An armed guard would have most likely wasted the offender.
The idea here is to have more guns to arm those guards. This is not a discussion about having less guns and you're wrong to bring the topic with that event.
However something very counter-intuitive will happen if you put guards everywhere. First, I take the bet that those guards are not perfect and can mess up very badly at an extremely low probability.
But the thing is there's also an extremely low probability of attack to each location (hopefully the US is not a battlefield).
What will happen--and was counterintuitive--is that the individual guards messing up would be close to the offender attacking a specific location. Thus the guards Trump want to place are a bad idea. The best analogy with this phenomenon would be the false positives that happens with medical tests for rare diseases.
I respect your faith in guns and chose not to speak against it. However, I don't appreciate how you "generalized" on that event.
Depends on number of guards and many other circumstances. What if criminal took a child as hostage? It's a very effective shield and it's highly doubtful a guard would shoot at him.
You are certain that's the idea? I watched the video and he never said a word about bringing more guns. Armed guards - yes, death penalty for the act - yes. But you are free to give a timestamp in video provided, you can watch it as many times as you wish. By your own words, this is not a discussion about having less or more guns and you are wrong to bring the topic with that event. Now, you could argue that in his full response the topic itself is touched, it however IS NOT in the video provided. If that's the case, please do say so as not everyone follows what some politician says to win next elections.
The thing here is that Trump was more preoccupied about the good guys wining and the bad guys losing than the interest of his citizens. He tried to pass irrelevant ideas while using that specific event. He talked about what could make this incident right--with guards and quick death penalty--while oblivious his generalization could be very, very wrong.
Dear god, please stop, I do not wish to defend a politician... Sigh... First, he said this incident could have gone better if they had protection (ie. armed guard) and the fact this kind of crime deserves a death penalty to not keep such criminal around, as "lawyers will get involved and this and this". Every prisoner of this magnitude (and honestly, all of them) is a strain on society, this is his point. Armed guard in theory could turn the tables in theory, as it is a "maybe". Again, he is literally talking what some people want to hear. You don't like the guy, I don't care about the guy. Difference is, I do not jump the gun because I hate someone, twisting his own words and putting more. You got done by own overreacting because of political views. That's why I don't do it, it clouds the judgment and makes you susceptible to this kind of crap. Ideologies, man.
Considering your post, it seems you are trying way too hard to be right and find fault in others.
That may be only be how I see it and not how you actually think it but that comment on gun ban as well as those sarcasms about how I didn't react to it at first too were very distasteful. You probably see some points in my reply offensive or not really bright and you are free to point them out.
I have been pointed out wrong many times, even by doing research, there are topics I don't know enough about, simply impossible to learn everything. You are correct on finding a fault in other people, I just used your own tactics as it was the route you went with. However, I have been in debates during podcasts shitload of times and just have more experience. Do I try too hard being right? Probably sound like it, but some of my views aren't compatible with common morality, which I will agree, are problematic and hard to get. That technically makes me wrong as it removes major component of human being. Good example would be death penalty - remove the leech, no strain on society. Now, if we add moral problem to it, this makes it more complicated and we really need to establish some threshold to know if society can sentence someone to death for this or other type of crime. Since people care about not having blood on their hands, we try to fix them or keep until they die of old age. Seriously, there is even tons of philosophy in this and definitely wouldn't fit in just few posts.
I am a dick and don't try to hide it in any way, so no, I did not see a single offensive thing. Unless you came to my own house and offended me in person, I highly doubt there is anything that could be done to offend me.
Now, other way around, since you mentioned it... Seems like some things did offend you? Well, happens, welcome to the world. Now, sarcasm aside, the point was to make you look into what I wrote because it seems pointless if you just assume or skip things. Giving a poke that may annoy/anger is a good emotion to achieve exactly that as you may search for anything dumb I said to throw something back, which forces you to think and give your own opinions of how you see things, which I highly appreciate. Can as well give completely opposite effect, depends on need.
 
Last edited:
Apr 3, 2018
788
93
I don't know if killing would make the "reward" disappear for some shooters--I may underestimate the influence of a death row inmate. I get the idea to convince/persuade them they're just wasting their life. I would approve of a society that managed to do that. However I'm not sure about how to get to that point without having conflicts with human rights (death penalty) and freedom of speech (media censorship). Media is something you can't control (for the better of for the worse) while death penalty is. But just because you can only act on the latter doesn't mean you have to risk doing so.

As for Trump not saying more guns were needed. You are correct, he didn't say that, but you're also nitpicking. He spoke of guards, borrowing an old NRA idea that if you have someone armed you're safe(r)--with that "someone" being a guard. I made the shortcut this was about having more guns because you suggested the debate was going to be about having less guns in America (which is, I agree, a pointless debate over something that will not necessarily benefit the US) and that I wanted to stop you there. Now if you're honest, you know that when it starts with a NRA argument it ends if the need for more guns. You also know that those guards will need guns and that those guns will be more guns.
You really like nitpicking do you? Because if I was concerned about false positives, i-e guards killing innocent, you seemed concerned about true-negatives, the guards actually failing to protect with a hostage situation. But I still think you understood if you used the same talent to find fault to actually understand the point that was being made.

I'm not a fan of Trump but I don't have the same point of view on him than you. You are ready to defend him and I understand that it's not because you like him but because you think the end justifies the means: even if he has bad judgment he can make good decisions. Based on the video, he didn't seem to have a proper reasoning as he went straight up with the flow, borrowing ideas here and there (Armed guard: one of the most popular and widespread NRA pro-gun argument; death/pay the ultimate price: any grumpy old man about any murderer that should be killed on spot if not fed to the dogs). This was essentially Trump acting like himself.

I might have also be tempted to let it go if I approved of a more systematic death penalty. It just happens that he proposes to stiffen up the death penalty for a reason I can't approve (disgust) and that completely fails to convince me. Of course, you see it another way with a very different reasoning (you didn't need to see the video) that leads you to perceive a benefit (prevention).
You might think you're pragmatic but having a proper reason is, IMO, as important as making a correct decision. We already exposed our point of view about death penalty for mass shooters so I won't talk about it again. Just know that things will always evolve. You'll look back at the reasons you wanted it to be that way to begin with. If the reason for death penalty is to punish rather to dissuade, then you'll walk a wrong path. There is a man that just wants a punitive death penalty, he didn't consider how to dissuade murders, and if he leads change with his point of view you can't expect your current attitude to serve your interests.

So yeah, good thing if you know ideas to make mass shooters lose motivation, bad point on nitpicking though. For the rest, I understand you better now and don't think you are more of a jerk that me. Then, I understand but I disagree with your way to be unbiased to politicians by just looking at their results.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads