|
Spiffster posted:Why the hell is this guy still in the news? Who gives a poo poo about this guy!? Probably because he purposefully says inflammatory poo poo like this to keep his name up.
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Cimber posted:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/joe-the-plumber-wurzelbacher-ucsb-shooting-dead-kids Isn't this literally that old SA quote about the "inevitable legislative response"?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Why the hell is this guy still in the news? Who gives a poo poo about this guy!? Because he said some horribly insensitive and non-apropos poo poo to grieving families.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Isn't this literally that old SA quote about the "inevitable legislative response"? I thought that was a Freep quote not a goon quote
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I thought that was a Freep quote not a goon quote When it comes to guns sometimes there's little difference. Gun goons love their guns and will troll to great lengths to shut down any discussion of gun responsibility laws.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I thought that was a Freep quote not a goon quote It was what a goon said word for word in like the first post of the Virginia Tech massacre.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:By "Law enforcement" you mean the Secret Service. Yeah there's no way the SCOTUS was going to rule against the Secret Service on something like that. zoux posted:Is there a D&D thread discussing the misogyny shooting and the horrible internet response to it? Summary: Internet is full of anonymous shitheads. Burn reddit to the ground and salt the earth. Spiffster posted:Why the hell is this guy still in the news? Who gives a poo poo about this guy!? People who think Sarah Palin's someone to listen to and not a life lesson.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
I wouldn't be shocked if half the country agrees with Joe the Plumber. I don't care that there are stories about him, I'm more concerned that there are at least a hundred million American citizens like him.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:When it comes to guns sometimes there's little difference. Gun goons love their guns and will troll to great lengths to shut down any discussion of gun responsibility laws. That's an actual physical thing by the way.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:When it comes to guns sometimes there's little difference. Gun goons love their guns and will troll to great lengths to shut down any discussion of gun responsibility laws. The same thing happens with things like our prison system and police. Just because you'd have to be a total idiot or a monster to support any of these or oppose gun control legislation doesn't mean goons won't do it in droves.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:It was what a goon said word for word in like the first post of the Virginia Tech massacre. Yeah pretty sure it originated here along the lines of "I'm concerned this happened, not because of the lives lost but because of the inevitable legislative response" posted 100% seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:you'd have to be a total idiot or a monster to ... oppose gun control legislation Thanks for clearing that up for us. I'm glad I know the Correct D&D Opinions now.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Thanks for clearing that up for us. I'm glad I know the Correct D&D Opinions now. http://www.theonion.com/articles/no...eview:1:Default ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
"Joe" the "Plumber"'s response was surprisingly measured. He does raise the point of exactly what is supposed to be the response to a grieving parent who is proposing solutions that you don't agree with? Like what if the shooter had been an undocumented immigrant, and Richard Martinez was a Tea Partier and saidquote:These people are getting rich sitting in Congress. And what do they do? They don’t take care of our kids (which is exactly what he actually said) and started blaming Democrats for not closing the borders? Yes, we get it, he's grieving. But he still has bad priorities, and when does the timer run out for when you get to start countering them? How are you supposed to debate policy in light of the media's pornography of grief? Literally tight shots on this:  Are we just supposed to agree with him no matter what?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Shut up before you set off their "someone outside of TFR/GiP is talking about guns" siren and they come here. Too late.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
I think the whole point of barring the use of federal funds for gun control research is to keep the debate at the level of culture and emotion. The central question I'd need answered is this: To what degree does reducing gun crime reduce crime writ large? Unfortunately, I've yet to see any research which answers that question. If only some large institution with far reaching access could perform some grade-A epidemiological research into the topic...
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Nobody gives a poo poo if you don't like him, people are tired of these shootings, and want legislation, period.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
If the NRA didn't fight every possible solution to gun violence, maybe you'd have a point, SedanChair The father is grieving. But it doesn't make him any less wrong. Congress is so scared of the NRA and the 2nd Amendment attacks. But if we didn't have that drat (interpretation of the) 2nd Amendment, the amount of firearm deaths would be dramatically decreased. Also, your horrible analogy has been noted, and laughed at. Cherry picking quotes and creating a random scenario isn't necessary when we can discuss the one at hand with actual information and reactions.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nobody gives a poo poo if you don't like him, people are tired of these shootings, and want legislation, period. what legislation? Its already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nobody gives a poo poo if you don't like him, people are tired of these shootings, and want legislation, period. But is that actually a good basis for legislation? What if Elliot Rodgers simply kicked in the sorority's door and stalked through the house killing a couple dozen attractive women, leaving a few dozens grieving parents calling for an end to liberal interference with law abiding citizen's ability to have the means to defend themselves?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:what legislation? Its already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns. I've been informed he purchased these weapons himself, he didn't steal them from daddy.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:"Joe" the "Plumber"'s response was surprisingly measured. He does raise the point of exactly what is supposed to be the response to a grieving parent who is proposing solutions that you don't agree with? Like what if the shooter had been an undocumented immigrant, and Richard Martinez was a Tea Partier and said 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What if Elliot Rodgers simply kicked in the sorority's door and stalked through the house killing a couple dozen attractive women, leaving a few dozens grieving parents calling for an end to liberal interference with law abiding citizen's ability to have the means to defend themselves? Yeah man, that thing that didn't happen at all is why the scenario that did should not lead to further gun legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Yeah man, that thing that didn't happen at all is why the scenario that did should not lead to further gun legislation. It very, very easily could have. Are you going to tell me risk doesn't exist? Point is that your argument gets as far as affirming that the impetus exists, but it doesn't address the question of what do you actually pass?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Cimber posted:what legislation? Its already illegal for the mentally ill to own guns. And despite his multiple therapists and other run-ins with the law, he still owned them. The system isn't perfect, it could be better, but people don't let it get fixed. quote:What if Elliot Rodgers simply kicked in the sorority's door and stalked through the house killing a couple dozen attractive women, leaving a few dozens grieving parents calling for an end to liberal interference with law abiding citizen's ability to have the means to defend themselves? Ah yes, the "hero with the gun" fantasy. Well played, your hypothetical has won the argument!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I think the whole point of barring the use of federal funds for gun control research is to keep the debate at the level of culture and emotion. The central question I'd need answered is this: To what degree does reducing gun crime reduce crime writ large? Would $50 million be enough to start? I wonder why Bloomberg didn't fund a huge study, rather than a fool's crusade to run ads in flyover states. JT Jag posted:The problem of course is that the response to these shooting is inevitably "you're exploiting this shooting for political gain, we need time as a nation to recover from this before we consider rash emotional political action." Then another mass shooting happens and that vague "grieving timer" restarts. It never ends. Kind of the opposite actually. Gun owners are the ones who are getting called ghouls (rightly in many cases) for daring to address the flaws in Martinez' argument.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:But is that actually a good basis for legislation? Dam Congress for banning anti-bullet forcefields! Because having a gun doesn't stop someone from shooting you.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
Nybble posted:Ah yes, the "hero with the gun" fantasy. Well played, your hypothetical has won the argument! It would've been so easy for him to enter the house that it was luck he didn't. It's luck you aren't hearing that from the right right now. And if you were, how much should automatically cede on that basis? Anything? Obviously not. It's impetus. [Should we act] is a different matter from [How do we act].
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The problem of course is that the response to these shooting is inevitably "you're exploiting this shooting for political gain, we need time as a nation to recover from this before we consider rash emotional political action." Then another mass shooting happens and that vague "grieving timer" restarts. It never ends. How about May 22? Oh wait, nobody cared then because gun control bills have no staying power. They exist to get defeated and raise funds for Congresspeople who get to talk about how mean the NRA is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:How about May 22? Oh wait, nobody cared then because gun control bills have no staying power. They exist to get defeated and raise funds for Congresspeople who get to talk about how mean the NRA is. sounds like any bill to me champ 
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Would $50 million be enough to start? I wonder why Bloomberg didn't fund a huge study, rather than a fool's crusade to run ads in flyover states. I honestly don't know but I'd love to. There's an article I very vaguely recall, though, which argued that it's both an issue of funding and access. It was something about institutions like the CDC having access to [poo poo I can't remember] that a well funded university department wouldn't, and so to get really get it done, you really do need to free up federal funds. I can't remember enough to find anything making that argument, though. This ring any bells for anyone? Accretionist fucked around with this message at 23:17 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The problem of course is that the response to these shooting is inevitably "you're exploiting this shooting for political gain, we need time as a nation to recover from this before we consider rash emotional political action." Then another mass shooting happens and that vague "grieving timer" restarts. It never ends. Lol the anniversary of a shooting happening before the next one. This must be an old cartoon
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I'm a little at a loss for what to think about gun control in this particular instance. The guy bought his guns in California where we already have background checks and a 10 day waiting period (also, the fact that he killed half his victims with a goddamn knife). I am all for more gun control personally but even if congress had passed something after Sandy Hook, I can't see how it would have made any difference in this story because CA already has stronger laws in place. Obviously even background checks and waiting periods are still totally inadequate.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
That's pretty much what I was going to post. I mean, what current legislation could we enact that would have stopped this particular instance?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Dam Congress for banning anti-bullet forcefields! Because having a gun doesn't stop someone from shooting you. A lot of gun owners have really bizarre ideas about what any armed confrontation would entail. I, personally, would respect the NRA a bit more if they would come up with sensible gun laws themselves. Instead of screaming about how anyone who mentions the word "gun" in legislation is Hitler, and doesn't know anything about guns.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Boon posted:That's pretty much what I was going to post. I mean, what current legislation could we enact that would have stopped this particular instance? edit: also a campaign to end homelessness in the inner city, which would reduce peoples' motivation to join gangs and thus cut down inner-city gun crime. This would cost money and maybe require that the US raise taxes though, so even though it wouldn't require the banning of a single gun the NRA would oppose it. JT Jag fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Whatever's done, the first step needs to be arming minorities to create pro-gun control momentum from the right.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Whatever's done, the first step needs to be arming minorities to create pro-gun control momentum from the right. National Association for the Armament of Colored People? I'm down.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Why even argue about it? Nothing can be done, they've won and if you want to be safe from gun violence move to another country because this poo poo will never stop and they'll never admit there's a problem. If the sky parted and god, creator of the universe and ultimate authority on all things, spoke in a booming voice that GUNS DO IN FACT KILL PEOPLE NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT, gun crazies would ignore that too.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:27 |
|
|
Warchicken posted:Why even argue about it? Nothing can be done, they've won and if you want to be safe from gun violence move to another country because this poo poo will never stop and they'll never admit there's a problem. Looks like the rhetoric is working at least.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 00:17
|
|
