Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > It's time for America to start looking at other countries

It's time for America to start looking at other countries (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Because it never works out that way in here. It amounts to the participation splitting between emotional diatribes and potshots ala Badkosh, or endless academic bickering over small minutia while rarely addressing the underlying points and concepts, where it is very rare that anything is actually accomplished in terms of actually making a connection and bridging the disconnect that exists between both sides.
Blame the internet, if you want- it's what passes for discussion these days. Hairsplitting and nitpicking never refute an argument, but they do make discussion impossible, which seems to be the point of most forum discussion anyway.

To be honest, I doubt most people would care to have real, rational discussions- they're pretty boring in comparison to the fireworks that go on here.

And Besson, if you really want to make connections and bridge opposing sides, you need to have a look at the threads you start- because that's certainly not the way to do it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post

Blame the internet, if you want- it's what passes for discussion these days. Hairsplitting and nitpicking never refute an argument, but they do make discussion impossible, which seems to be the point of most forum discussion anyway.
To be honest, I doubt most people would care to have real, rational discussions- they're pretty boring in comparison to the fireworks that go on here.
And Besson, if you really want to make connections and bridge opposing sides, you need to have a look at the threads you start- because that's certainly not the way to do it.
I've tried a number of different techniques over a number of years and have observed others and their varying styles (including those that do what I've tried to do better than I), and I've concluded that it really doesn't matter, the vast majority of the time there is a gravitational pull back to the norm. It's just that the MacNN norm has gotten super old and long in the tooth.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 07:45 PM
 
If that happens its because people who know they can do better objectively, as in saying "I've looked at people who do this better", decide to stop trying.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If that happens its because people who know they can do better objectively, as in saying "I've looked at people who do this better", decide to stop trying.
Right now I have stopped trying, yeah. This thread made me realize my fatigue at some point. Still, I think my assessment is pretty accurate.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:07 PM
 
Frankly, *uck the other countries. They're okay, I enjoy visiting, but I'm busy enough with my own community. If everyone just tried to take care of their own little corner of the world, we wouldn't have any of this horrible shit going on.

This is hardly a unique position, in fact I hear it a whole hell of a lot from people in NZ.
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Right now I have stopped trying, yeah. This thread made me realize my fatigue at some point. Still, I think my assessment is pretty accurate.
So, where exactly are you having these immensely satisfying political discussions on the Internet that we could have here if we weren't such ****ups?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2012, 08:14 PM
 
Go try AnandTech. HAHAHAHAHA!!
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 03:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And since you are the person who came up with this analogy, I assume your friends felt it was ok to make fundamental changes to the nature of your stuff before giving it back, and you didn't mind? What did they change?
This is an analogy now? You were the one who said you didn't trust anyone with any of your stuff.
I said "make decisions" and you brought up lending things. If you weren't making an analogy then what was the point of bringing it up? Do you try to address the intent of a post or do you just try to argue with bits and pieces out of context?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 05:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, where exactly are you having these immensely satisfying political discussions on the Internet that we could have here if we weren't such ****ups?
I don't do a whole lot of online chatting, although I've had pretty satisfying discussion about controversial stuff on Facebook. We aren't **** ups, we're just stuck in a rut. Maybe we just need some fresh blood.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Right now I have stopped trying, yeah. This thread made me realize my fatigue at some point. Still, I think my assessment is pretty accurate.
I think you have to admit that your threads tend to start off a bit aggressively, so it shouldn't be too surprising that people respond defensively. It's a bit disingenuous to be passive about it now.

It's obvious that the people you want to have discussions with hold some different principles; if you truly want to make an intelligent connection with them, start there.

For example, instead of stating that "it's time for America to do this," and pointing out how bull-headed Americans are, why not ask if there's something the country can learn from other nations?


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We aren't **** ups, we're just stuck in a rut. Maybe we just need some fresh blood.
I tried, but you guys do seem to prefer the same old thing.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Frankly, *uck the other countries. They're okay, I enjoy visiting, but I'm busy enough with my own community. If everyone just tried to take care of their own little corner of the world, we wouldn't have any of this horrible shit going on.
This is hardly a unique position, in fact I hear it a whole hell of a lot from people in NZ.
I mostly concur.

The OP (besson3c) started this thread with a condescending tone but I think America can learn a little from other countries and other countries can learn plenty of America.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 10:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We aren't **** ups, we're just stuck in a rut. Maybe we just need some fresh blood.
I tried, but you guys do seem to prefer the same old thing.
You can't blame someone for expecting the same old thing. Keep trying.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
I tried, but you guys do seem to prefer the same old thing.
It shouldn't surprise you this makes me want to get defensive. You're ragging on my peeps.

I'll try to rise above my lizard brain here and ask what you mean rather than jumping your shit.

What do you mean?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It shouldn't surprise you this makes me want to get defensive. You're ragging on my peeps.
I'll try to rise above my lizard brain here and ask what you mean rather than jumping your shit.
What do you mean?
By that I mean a couple of things-

First, Besson was complaining that it seems this forum is stuck in a rut because the arguments and responses are predictable- thus the need for new blood. I can see his point, but I also tried pointing out to him that if he wants to see something different, he needs to start with his own posts.

Second, judging from everyone else's post counts, I guess I'm the closest thing to new blood that this forum (P/WL) has. And since you imply I'm not one of your peeps, I guess you agree. Whether I have anything to offer is a different question, one that depends more on you guys than me- maybe Besson is the only person who thinks you're in a rut, and the rest of you like what you have here. I've tried to add a different way of looking at things when I can, but so long as I'm not one of your peeps, you're all free to decide whether the new guy has anything interesting to say.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
By that I mean a couple of things-
First, Besson was complaining that it seems this forum is stuck in a rut because the arguments and responses are predictable- thus the need for new blood. I can see his point, but I also tried pointing out to him that if he wants to see something different, he needs to start with his own posts.
Second, judging from everyone else's post counts, I guess I'm the closest thing to new blood that this forum (P/WL) has. And since you imply I'm not one of your peeps, I guess you agree. Whether I have anything to offer is a different question, one that depends more on you guys than me- maybe Besson is the only person who thinks you're in a rut, and the rest of you like what you have here. I've tried to add a different way of looking at things when I can, but so long as I'm not one of your peeps, you're all free to decide whether the new guy has anything interesting to say.
Well then please accept a massive apology.

I'm glad I asked for clarification because I had completely misinterpreted what you said.

Dude, while you perhaps have not been here long enough to qualify as "my peep", that's an issue of time, and is ultimately somewhat separate from how good your contribution is to our little corner of hell.

With regards to that contribution, I can only speak for myself, but I'm ****ing thrilled.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
No worries, Sub- sometimes I forget that there are other discussions going on within a thread. I should have been clearer.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
 
Gun bans and major gun control wont help America. Most of these mass shootings fall under mental health and health care. The real problem starts there not the guns. The US could use some minor changes to limited gun control more so to prevent some preventable stuff. But no amount of gun control will stop a criminal form getting access to a gun and using it, none.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2012, 11:32 PM
 
For what feels like the billionth time, these mass murders are not being comitted with illegally acquired guns or by career criminals. They are being committed by people who either buy them legally or know whoever did. They are mostly disillusioned kids who easy access to legally purchased weapons.

Yes, mental health is a key, root issue here. On the other hand it seems like more than one of them have been pushed to breaking point by their peers treatment of them. Either way these are big and very expensive issues to deal with. Doesn't it make sense to put the deadly weapons on a higher shelf, if only until the kids are all right to use them without going off the deep end?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 01:35 AM
 
And again, for the umpteenth time, take care of the mental issues that are causing these rampages. Take the guns and you'll have fertilizer trucks exploding under buildings (OKC ring a bell?), because that will be what's available. Sick people do sick things, and this country doesn't do a good job of screening and helping them.
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 04:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Either way these are big and very expensive issues to deal with. Doesn't it make sense to...
It's short-sighted to disregard something like the bill of rights just because it's expensive. If we don't make the effort to address the real problem, we'll be creating more new problems than we solve.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 05:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
For what feels like the billionth time, these mass murders are not being comitted with illegally acquired guns or by career criminals. They are being committed by people who either buy them legally or know whoever did. They are mostly disillusioned kids who easy access to legally purchased weapons.
Your point is valid, but I think the problem is that it treats arguments such as "if you control guns, only criminals will have them" or "the problem is people, not guns," as a starting point for rational discussion. Obviously, they're not starting points, just a rhetoric of denial, so why bother wasting your efforts on people who aren't interested in finding a solution?


Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes, mental health is a key, root issue here. On the other hand it seems like more than one of them have been pushed to breaking point by their peers treatment of them. Either way these are big and very expensive issues to deal with. Doesn't it make sense to put the deadly weapons on a higher shelf, if only until the kids are all right to use them without going off the deep end?
It makes a lot of sense, but it brings its own problems, namely who and how? It's even harder when you consider that the people best able to regulate gun traffic- the owners, makers, and sellers- refuse to take any responsibility for it. As a result, anything you propose will seem rather draconian.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
And again, for the umpteenth time, take care of the mental issues that are causing these rampages. Take the guns and you'll have fertilizer trucks exploding under buildings (OKC ring a bell?), because that will be what's available. Sick people do sick things, and this country doesn't do a good job of screening and helping them.
I don't agree.

Take the guns away and you'll provide a deterrence that will make it trickier for those to go on some sort of drunken rage on a whim. It can't hurt.

There is no absolute security, just deterrence.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Gun bans and major gun control wont help America. Most of these mass shootings fall under mental health and health care. The real problem starts there not the guns. The US could use some minor changes to limited gun control more so to prevent some preventable stuff. But no amount of gun control will stop a criminal form getting access to a gun and using it, none.
But it might deter the mentally ill, which is what we are talking about here.

Too many people are looking for absolute solutions when there are none. The best we can do is provide deterrence, and do little things that might make a difference.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
It's even harder when you consider that the people best able to regulate gun traffic- the owners, makers, and sellers- refuse to take any responsibility for it. As a result, anything you propose will seem rather draconian.
Bingo. It's possible to find a way to get them on your side, just like with the regulation of everything else in life (that hasn't been a complete disaster, like narcotics). If only we could contain our emotional knee-jerks and think rationally, and start thinking about benefiting legal gun owners in the process as a positive instead of a negative. A win-win works, a win-lose doesn't, that's the way it is with all social problems like this.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Too many people are looking for absolute solutions when there are none. The best we can do is provide deterrence, and do little things that might make a difference.
Just a minor correction: most of the people who are talking about absolute solutions ("gun control won't stop all criminals from getting guns;" "more people with guns is the only deterrent") aren't really looking for solutions, they're taking extreme, nonsensical positions in order to avoid finding a solution.

You're right that the little things can make a difference- when there are around 10,000 murders committed with a gun every year, even a few percentage points means hundreds of lives.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post

Just a minor correction: most of the people who are talking about absolute solutions ("gun control won't stop all criminals from getting guns;" "more people with guns is the only deterrent") aren't really looking for solutions, they're taking extreme, nonsensical positions in order to avoid finding a solution.
You're right that the little things can make a difference- when there are around 10,000 murders committed with a gun every year, even a few percentage points means hundreds of lives.
Exactly!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
And again, for the umpteenth time, take care of the mental issues that are causing these rampages. Take the guns and you'll have fertilizer trucks exploding under buildings (OKC ring a bell?), because that will be what's available. Sick people do sick things, and this country doesn't do a good job of screening and helping them.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this country doesn't so a good job of screening and helping them, but I'm confused why you are also simultaneously, as you said earlier in this thread, disinterested in looking at what they do in other countries? Did I misunderstand?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
And again, for the umpteenth time, take care of the mental issues that are causing these rampages. Take the guns and you'll have fertilizer trucks exploding under buildings (OKC ring a bell?), because that will be what's available. Sick people do sick things, and this country doesn't do a good job of screening and helping them.
I'm pretty sure that kind of terrorism is a different kind of sick from the spree killers. If only slightly.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Too many people are looking for absolute solutions when there are none. The best we can do is provide deterrence, and do little things that might make a difference.
Just a minor correction: most of the people who are talking about absolute solutions ("gun control won't stop all criminals from getting guns;" "more people with guns is the only deterrent") aren't really looking for solutions, they're taking extreme, nonsensical positions in order to avoid finding a solution.

You're right that the little things can make a difference- when there are around 10,000 murders committed with a gun every year, even a few percentage points means hundreds of lives.
Neat straw man. Exactly the kind of defenseless target the OP was looking for. You and he will be very happy tearing it down.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:45 AM
 
Raleur is a Besson sock-puppet, so no surprise there.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

I don't agree.
Of course you don't, that's why we won't agree. However, since guns will not be banned, we'll work on the actual problem.
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

Of course you don't, that's why we won't agree. However, since guns will not be banned, we'll work on the actual problem.
Assault rifles might be banned, as they were pre-2004. Would this hurt or help?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post

Raleur is a Besson sock-puppet, so no surprise there.
-t
I think you are a Justin Beiber sock-puppet.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:46 AM
 
Discussion of where your fist goes is for the porn thread.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It can't hurt.
This is a very astute observation. Those in favor of gun bans simply don't accept the premise that the (principle that birthed the) 2nd amendment is even a good thing in the first place. From that starting point, their weighting of cost/benefit analyses of everything else is entirely different from those who do. I predict that as a nation we won't ever dig into that root issue, and therefore we won't really ever come to agreement, only negotiated surrender.

It's the same problem with the abortion debate. One side has a heartfelt _belief_ that a person is dying, and the other side simply doesn't accept that premise. Elaborate trade-offs and cost/benefits are studdied and offered, yet when respectively building off of that fundamentally incongruous foundation, the two sides have no hope of seeing eye to eye. It is all just a matter of collecting the most supporters and forcing each other into submission.

I think both sides (of both debates) are willing to negotiate, they just don't know how to offer the other side anything in an appropriate currency because they don't accept the other side's premise. It's the endless series of laughable offerings that end up galvanizing the groups against each other. Not an unwillingness to come up with a solution that serves both sides. IMO.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Raleur is a Besson sock-puppet, so no surprise there.

-t
I'm pretty sure this is completely incorrect.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
This is a very astute observation. Those in favor of gun bans simply don't accept the premise that the (principle that birthed the) 2nd amendment is even a good thing in the first place. From that starting point, their weighting of cost/benefit analyses of everything else is entirely different from those who do. I predict that as a nation we won't ever dig into that root issue, and therefore we won't really ever come to agreement, only negotiated surrender.
It's the same problem with the abortion debate. One side has a heartfelt _belief_ that a person is dying, and the other side simply doesn't accept that premise. Elaborate trade-offs and cost/benefits are studdied and offered, yet when respectively building off of that fundamentally incongruous foundation, the two sides have no hope of seeing eye to eye. It is all just a matter of collecting the most supporters and forcing each other into submission.
I think both sides (of both debates) are willing to negotiate, they just don't know how to offer the other side anything in an appropriate currency because they don't accept the other side's premise. It's the endless series of laughable offerings that end up galvanizing the groups against each other. Not an unwillingness to come up with a solution that serves both sides. IMO.
Very well put.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 12:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Assault rifles might be banned, as they were pre-2004. Would this hurt or help?
And that will do what exactly? Wont change a bloody thing.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post

And that will do what exactly? Wont change a bloody thing.
Deterrent.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post

Assault rifles might be banned, as they were pre-2004. Would this hurt or help?
Doubtful. since that's just as cosmetic fix, and lawmakers know that now. I doubt they'd get the votes to pass.
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Deterrent.
How will a cosmetic difference fix anything?
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post


How will a cosmetic difference fix anything?
Are you saying that assault rifles, including fully automatic ones, are simply cosmetically different than handguns and rifles?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you saying that assault rifles, including fully automatic ones, are simply cosmetically different than handguns and rifles?
Just remember: those simple cosmetic differences are keeping tens of thousands of federal buildings safe from fertilizer-filled trucks. So it's best to leave them alone.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 93
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
Just remember: those simple cosmetic differences are keeping tens of thousands of federal buildings safe from fertilizer-filled trucks. So it's best to leave them alone.
You're really going to launch that snarky crap at me? Address the issue or don't bother. My cousin was almost killed in OKC during that incident, but you don't see me out trying to get Congress to ban cow manure.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you saying that assault rifles, including fully automatic ones, are simply cosmetically different than handguns and rifles?
The assault rifles in question aren't fully automatic, you've been told that already (a few times), and fully automatic weapons aren't prevalent. They're quite difficult to buy legally, very expensive, and are tracked carefully.
"Ah, the good ole' days. Nixon snooped on a hotel room and had to resign in disgrace.
Now you can eavesdrop on the whole world and it gets brushed off like a parking ticket."

- Bill Maher
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

The assault rifles in question aren't fully automatic, you've been told that already (a few times), and fully automatic weapons aren't prevalent. They're quite difficult to buy legally, very expensive, and are tracked carefully.
I know the weapons used were not fully automatic, but since this conversation has lost focus I asked this with the assault rifle ban in mind, trying to see whether you'd support the ban should it be re-instated.

To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding your thought process.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Deterrent.
Deterrent to what?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you saying that assault rifles, including fully automatic ones, are simply cosmetically different than handguns and rifles?
Here are 2 videos of me with guns. Which one is scares you more

The Mossberg Tactical

http://vimeo.com/27998884 <-- Tactical, looks like a assault rife

or

SVT-40

http://vimeo.com/27999009

Here is the Tactical again, with my 13 year old cuz

http://vimeo.com/35938555


Just so you know the SVT with a modified mag would hold nearly as many shots as the Mossberg but its rounds will do a hell of a lot more damage. But a gun isn't a gun. By your standards that Mossberg is more dangerous because it looks more scary
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

The assault rifles in question aren't fully automatic, you've been told that already (a few times), and fully automatic weapons aren't prevalent. They're quite difficult to buy legally, very expensive, and are tracked carefully.
And any one that has shoot a fully automatic gun would tell you that full automatic mode is a waste and accuracy is shit. You will be lucky to kill many targets in that mode.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You're really going to launch that snarky crap at me? Address the issue or don't bother. My cousin was almost killed in OKC during that incident, but you don't see me out trying to get Congress to ban cow manure.
Snarky? No son, I'm addressing the issue directly by pointing out what an utterly ridiculous argument you're trying to get away with. There's no point in taking it more seriously when you make nonsense claims.

My uncle was killed in OKC, but you don't see me trying to get Congress to ban cow manure either. Mainly because a) it's an appeal to sympathy that's not pertinent to the discussion, b) a spurious argument based on nonexistent authority, and c) makes no sense whatsoever.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2012, 09:44 PM
 
As far as America lookIng at other countries... Im all for it, but, Do we get to pick which countries, policies, successes, consequences and failures to compare to or do you get to pick them? I already know the answer because ive brought this exact issue up before only to run into the 'same tired hypocrisy.'

I think some would be disappointed once they actually visited most countries to learn that reality is different than the picture their armchair research painted of such countries.
At the cost of disaster humanity's victory over nature is nearly complete
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2013 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.7 © 2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2