U.S. Politics 2016: "You Suck!!!" "No, you Suck!!!"

[James Arryn]

33 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't want to engage in discussions about gun control, because they've been done and overdone here.

If you consider that trolling, then so be it.  There's simply no new ground to cover on the topic of gun control, so i don't find it interesting. If you want to discuss, by all means, go right ahead.  

 

So you wanted to discuss attitudes towards gun control and how it reflected poorly on 'the left' as long as there were no follow-up questions? Sounds entirely reasonable.

[MerenthaClone]

31 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

It was still a attack, people was still hurt and his intent was to murder. I just thought that when anything like this occurs there is a thread for it and discussion. I was truly surprised there wasnt, and my thought was that there wasn't a gun involved. You know, if you don't think that this board is heavily leaning to the left and ready to jump on any agenda that could boost their position, then I think you're lying to yourself. Sorry, was just pointing out an observation. I didn't read the thread and see that it was discussed. I just posted in politics because their was no thread for it. 

Perhaps you could post what exactly about this attack makes it worthy of national attention compared to the thousands of attempted assaults that occur throughout the country daily?  At least with shootings the answer is usually found in the scope or magnitude of the attack.  What about this attack is special to you?

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So you wanted to discuss attitudes towards gun control and how it reflected poorly on 'the left' as long as there were no follow-up questions? Sounds entirely reasonable.

I didn't post about gun control.  I made a response to a post about the attack at OSU, and the reaction to it.(or lack thereof)

If you want to discuss the attack and it's ramifications by all means, or that fact that if it were an attack by a redneck with a gun there would be about ten full threads about it by now, I'm open to that. If you guys want to discuss gun control, again, by all means, have at it.  I'm not the boss of you. It's just not a conversation I'm particularly interested in.

Really, I don't know what is so confusing here.

 

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, LongRider said:

This isn't typical political deal making, it's about people personally 'loving' Donald Trump.  Big difference.  Not about politics, it's about him, Donald Trump, himself.

But it's exactly the same idea -- he's just using different words for it.

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You know like when it's Shown that tools like cars and knives, that are not primarily designed to kill other people, aren't nearly as efficient as guns when used for that purpose.

I don't think anything of the sort has been shown. For a counterexample, consider the attack in Nice where the vast majority of the deaths and injuries (far more than most shootings) were caused by the vehicle. In the Ohio State case, we were fortunate in that the attacker did not appear to have any training in this kind of action and in that the police reacted quickly and efficiently.

[James Arryn]

This is really champion, when you think about it. X derides much entertainment because of the irony of a purported gun attack being absent said guns, castigates folk for not spending much time discussing said attack and completely misses the irony of the accompanying absence of casualties explains both the argument he thinks he's diminishing and the hypocritical lack of discussion he thinks he's exposing.

Almost worthy of the Onion or Colbert.

[LongRider]

4 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But it's exactly the same idea -- he's just using different words for it.

No, I disagree it's not the same idea.  He's telling us exactly what he wants, people to love Donald Trump or look out, they won't be rewarded.  He's not talking about politics here, he's talking about what Trump wants for Trump.

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I didn't post about gun control.  I made a response to a post about the attack at OSU, and the reaction to it.(or lack thereof)

If you want to discuss the attack and it's ramifications by all means, or that fact that if it were an attack by a redneck with a gun there would be about ten full threads about it by now, I'm open to that. If you guys want to discuss gun control, again, by all means, have at it.  I'm not the boss of you. It's just not a conversation I'm particularly interested in.

Really, I don't know what is so confusing here.

 

If there were an attack by a redneck with a gun there would be about ten fully dead people by now. Do you see any pertinence in that distinction?

[MerenthaClone]

Just now, James Arryn said:

If there were an attack by a redneck with a gun there would be about ten fully dead people by now. Do you see any pertinence in that distinction?

*could be about ten fully dead, and if there somehow weren't, I'd expect the response to be as singularly tepid.  

[zelticgar]

2 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Perhaps you could post what exactly about this attack makes it worthy of national attention compared to the thousands of attempted assaults that occur throughout the country daily?  At least with shootings the answer is usually found in the scope or magnitude of the attack.  What about this attack is special to you?

It is pretty rare to have a large assault happen by vehicle and the use of a machete or large knife on multiple victims is noteworthy. No idea how many campus wide lockdowns happen on average per year but it can't be that frequent so thats another interesting part. The 24 hour news coverage went big on the early lockdown reports so they were already committed by that point. Add to it that OSU is one of the largest Universities in the country and I think you can make an argument that the incident is unique and interesting enough to warrant the coverage. I also think there is an interesting angle around a newly arrived immigrant from Somalia initiating a violent act so close to his arrival to the United States. From what I read he has only been here for a little over two years. 

[James Arryn]

Just now, MerenthaClone said:

*could be about ten fully dead, and if there somehow weren't, I'd expect the response to be as singularly tepid.  

Yeah, just wanted to stay ironically symmetrical.

[TerraPrime]

right wingers: "The leftists are so easily outraged! They are looking for things to be offended about!"

*OSU assault happened*

 

right wingers: "The leftists are not outraged enough! They are hypocritical!"

 

*insert shrugging icon*

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

If there were an attack by a redneck with a gun there would be about ten fully dead people by now. Do you see any pertinence in that distinction?

Sure. How is that distinction related to my original post?

1 minute ago, TerraPrime said:

right wingers: "The leftists are so easily outraged! They are looking for things to be offended about!"

*OSU assault happened*

 

right wingers: "The leftists are not outraged enough! They are hypocritical!"

 

*insert shrugging icon*

This is utterly bereft of any intellectual honesty.

I haven't claimed the left is not 'outraged enough'.  I simply pointed out the difference in the reaction, and some facts of the incident that i thought were interesting and related to the lack of outrage.

Apparently this struck a nerve.  Who would've guessed?

*insert smirking emoji*

 

 

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Sure. How is that distinction related to my original post?

This is utterly bereft of any intellectual honesty.

I haven't claimed the left is not 'outraged enough'.  I simply pointed out the difference in the reaction, and some facts of the incident that i thought were interesting and related to the lack of outrage.

Apparently this struck a nerve.  Who would've guessed?

*insert smirking emoji*

 

 

 

 

Oh FFS. Get a room (or, what I really mean is, start a new thread).   Honestly, I was sort of wondering where the thread was myself but was too lazy to start it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think anything of the sort has been shown. For a counterexample, consider the attack in Nice where the vast majority of the deaths and injuries (far more than most shootings) were caused by the vehicle. In the Ohio State case, we were fortunate in that the attacker did not appear to have any training in this kind of action and in that the police reacted quickly and efficiently.

Okay, I can allow that on rare occasion, when you have a large crowd of compacted people that a truck might be as efficient as a firearm.

[James Arryn]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Sure. How is that distinction related to my original post?

This is utterly bereft of any intellectual honesty.

I haven't claimed the left is not 'outraged enough'.  I simply pointed out the difference in the reaction, and some facts of the incident that i thought were interesting and related to the lack of outrage.

Apparently this struck a nerve.  Who would've guessed?

*insert smirking emoji*

 

 

 

 

That, besides serving as an ! for the raison d'être of the anti-gun cause you don't want to discuss, the lack of dead victims in this knife attack might go some way to explaining the lack of interest in discussing this attack, with or without bias/bullets?

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

I don't think anything of the sort has been shown. For a counterexample, consider the attack in Nice where the vast majority of the deaths and injuries (far more than most shootings) were caused by the vehicle. In the Ohio State case, we were fortunate in that the attacker did not appear to have any training in this kind of action and in that the police reacted quickly and efficiently.

I think the proper way to think about this issue is:

1. You introduce gun control.

2. After you introduce gun control, you'd naturally expect gun related deaths to decline.

3. But then either the overall homicide rate declines or it doesn't.

4. If the overall homicide rate doesn't decline, then I guess you conclude that people are simply substituting other things than guns to commit homicide or acts of violence. But if the over all rate declines, then I think you can conclude people aren't substituting other things to commit acts of violence. If there they aren't substituting other implements for guns, then likely it's because guns make killing easier and require less effort.

As to your claim, that there is nothing that tends to show that guns are more efficient at killing, I'm a bit doubtful of that claim. For instance:

Quote

South Africa's comprehensive Firearm Control Act, passed in 2000, contained all these measures. One study found that firearm homicides in five major South African cities decreased by 13.6 percent per year for the next five years. "Reductions in nonfirearm homicides were also observed," Santaella-Tenorio et al. note, "although not as pronounced as the ones observed for firearm homicides."

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

That, besides serving as an ! for the raison d'être of the anti-gun cause you don't want to discuss, the lack of dead victims in this knife attack might go some way to explaining the lack of interest in discussing this attack, with or without bias/bullets?

It might.  But I doubt it.

Is it your assertion that had the shooter had a gun, and merely shot 11 people but not killed anyone, that the board would be mostly silent about it?

Or if it had not been a muslim refugee, but instead a white redneck?

If so then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[James Arryn]

After 9-11, did we generally respond by limiting the availability of the force multipliers attackers might use on planes...as though the implements themselves were significant factors in the danger....or did we engage in a discussion about how air travel affects mental health?

I can't recall. 

[James Arryn]

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

It might.  But I doubt it.

Is it your assertion that had the shooter had a gun, and merely shot 11 people but not killed anyone, that the board would be mostly silent about it?

Or if it had not been a muslim refugee, but instead a white redneck?

If so then we'll have to agree to disagree.

No one killed, it wouldn't even make the Onion's 'name-changed' gun attack commentary.

And, for the record, are you actually saying that attacks by Muslims and/or refugees are UNDER reported in general, compared with attacks by white rednecks? Do you also think white rednecks are more likely to get pulled over, or 'randomly selected' at airports? Just wondering.

 

Edit: there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015 alone, according to Mass Shooting Tracker. Did you see anywhere near 372 threads, let alone 3,720 about them? We sadly live in a time where shootings are only notable if the victims are famous, the deaths many or the attack was recorded in some unique/visceral fashion. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Quote

Artan said he was scared to pray openly on campus and feared that media portrayals of Muslims would give people the wrong idea about him. 

Seems like people would have been right to get the "wrong idea" about him. A shame that a guy who seems like he was a bit fearful of public displays of Islam chose to channel that fear into violence instead of engagement. But then, I guess the lesson of modern day human interactions is that the appropriate outlet for fear is violence.

The question to ask now of course is not how do you catch domestic Muslim terrorists before they strike, but how do you remove the fear that some Muslim US residents/citizens are feeling? But no one in any position of influence or power is going to ask that question, let alone seek an answer.

There's a suggestion of "self-radicalisation". Well, if that's an actual thing and one does not need to be actively recruited in order to become sufficiently brainwashed to turn to mass, public violence, then the Muslim issue in the USA has taken a pretty dangerous turn. The phenomenon of self-radicalisation, if it is manifest in a few more attacks, will only increase the volume of the calls for a registry or something like it. But if acted upon it will only serve to further the self-radicalisation. It'll be like a positive feedback loop. And as we all know, positive feedback loops usually don't lead to positive outcomes, unless it's ovulation and you want to make a baby.