Pick one.

If you are suggesting we go back to a more idyllic time of "rule by big guys with pointy things" I'm afraid we will have to take your Liberal card and ask you to leave the building...

On a less snarky and more modern note, the genocide in Rwanda was accomplished largely without guns, so the assumption that an unarmed society is non-violent is not a realistic one.

Stone-Age:
"I have an idea: Everybody should own a wooden club and a handaxe. Nobody will ever again dare to kill somebody because then others would kill him in retaliation. We will live in peace."

Middle-Ages:
"I have an idea: Everybody should own a dagger. Nobody will ever again dare to kill somebody because then others would kill him in retaliation. We will live in peace."

Industrial Era:
"I have an idea: Everybody should own a gun. Nobody will ever again dare to kill somebody because then others would kill him in retaliation. We will live in peace."
"I have an idea: Everybody should own a stick of dynamite. Nobody will ever again dare to kill somebody because then others would kill him in retaliation. We will live in peace."

Cold War Era:
"I have an idea: Every nation should own nuclear bombs. Nobody will ever again dare to launch a war because then others would bomb him in retaliation. We will live in peace."

Electronic Era:
"I have an idea: Everybody should own a computer-virus. Nobody will ever again dare to mess with somebody's computer because then others would kill his computer in retaliation. We will live in peace."
"I have an idea: Everybody should own compromising information on somebody else. Nobody will ever again dare to publish damaging information on somebody else because then others would publish damaging information of him in retaliation. We will live in peace."




So, in which kind of peace do you want to live? And why?

Until you develop the cajones to admit that this is amazingly stupid statement and reframe your silly sound bite into an actual argument, there is really no point in doing anything but mocking your ineptness.

DetlefK Era:
"I have an idea: Let's pretend that this technological development does not exist, or only allow it in the possession of people whose ambition is to have power over others. I see no way that this could ever turn out badly."

Come up with an argument that reflects at least a passing awareness of history, human nature and liberal principles regarding the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the individual and government, and then we can actually discuss things in a rational manner. But if all you are going to do is incompetently elaborate on a failed premise, I can skewer you all damn day.

YOU try stuffing an entire argument that has already been had a billion times into a one-liner that satisfies every nit-picker who wants every nuance represented all the time because he assumes that otherwise people will forget how tricky and multi-layered this topic really is.

We agree that the current state, a "compromise" with a partially armed population, is undesirable.

We disagree on which of the extremes, liberal supply with guns or removal of guns, would be preferable.

We disagree on what constitutes "preferable": You focus on social and political criteria, like freedom, I focus on biological criteria, like security.



My example above, that you refused to even think about, shows that an increase in the availability of lethal devices does not automatically lead to security. If it would, all the scenarios I listed would have been enthusiastically employed throughout history. But they did not. Which proves my point.
If you insist on the position that a broad availability of lethal devices leads to a security from lethal threats, you are cordially invited to refer to historical scenarios that make your point.

On the topic of freedom: There are lots of countries in the world where access to arms is tightly restricted. And those people enjoy civil rights and freedom WHILE also enjoying a very low probability of lethal threats.

No, "we" don't agree, neither as you and me or by using "we" to represent American society in general. I have zero problem with a partially armed population, and it would be "partially" because I think there should be some restrictions on who can have one.

My points are:
1) We cannot undo technological developments. The increasing sophistication and decreasing cost of 3D printing will almost certainly put metal-based 3D printers in the "consumer goods" range within a decade. This makes preventing physical possession of any sort of metal item next to impossible. Attempts to control digital files or put blocks in the devices will work about as well as anti-piracy measures for any other digital product. And such inherently 3D designs can be built to work around not having a commercial ammunition supply for them. All of which means that the people who want a firearm in order to do or threaten violence are still going to be able to get one. (see the Charlie Hebdo shooting for a perfect example). And those are the people who are the problem that we both wish to solve, correct?

2) Prohibition laws, at least in the US, have fared poorly. Alcohol prohibition was a total failure and helped the development of organized crime. The War on Drugs has never kept drugs out of the US, either smuggled in or domestically produced, and again put lots of money in criminal pockets. In addition, the existing supply of guns is not going to go away. Even in countries with bans or buyback programs, there has been significant non-compliance, despite that non-compliance being the equivalent of a felony. I believe something like 30% of the guns that should have been turned over in Australia were not. And that was for a culture that did not have an RKBA tradition.

3) Humans have lots of aggression, and no law is going to alter this. Civilization as we know it is a thin veneer on savagery. Just look at how little it takes to start a riot. An argument of "well, we'll just kill and maim each other less efficiently if there are no guns" is about as morally bankrupt as "if we restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds that will give the 11th victim a running start". You are either trying to deal with the causes of violence or you are saying you don't care about the causes as long as the body count stays low.

4) The progress of civilization as I imagine liberals want it to be is one of increasing choice and increasing tolerance. You do not get that by saying "I don't care if you are a good person or not, someone who looks like you did something bad so I am passing laws against people that look like you." And in this case "look like you" means "you own a firearm". If you met me on the street, we might have a pleasant chat and find that we shared a lot of things in common. If you met me on the street and saw I had a concealed firearm, I would be the exact same person as in the first example, but your perception of me would be different. I would not be any different, you would just treat me differently. You would be no different than someone who hits the door locks on their car when they see a black person walking towards them. That's a problem at your end, not mine. Forcing me to change won't fix your problem.

On the topic of freedom: Some of the nations with the highest murder rates in the world also have strict anti-gun laws. And so do some of the nations with the lowest murder rates in the world. And you can see the same differences even across US states. The murder rate in Vermont (which has virtually no gun restrictions and more than 30% of the population owns guns) is about the same as the murder rate for the UK (which has severe gun restrictions and only a few percent own guns). The only difference is that more of the UK murders are done without a gun, though that is scant consolation to those who are amazingly enough, exactly as dead as they would be from a gun-based murder. You can only find a correlation between gun laws and crime if you cherry pick the countries. Gun control advocates like to point at Canada, but never at the even stricter laws in Mexico. Gun crime in Mexico is of course blamed on smuggled US guns, because everyone knows that the US has no border with Canada to smuggle guns across...

Similarly, the firearm murder rate in the US in 1950 when there were virtually no gun laws (you could buy assault rifles anonymously through the mail for cash from a gun dealer, legally) is about the same as it was in 2010, when there were significant restrictions on firearm purchases.

So, there is no evidence in US history to support the notion that increased restrictions automatically results in decreased crime. Zilch, none. If I took a graph of firearm murders for the last 70 years and took off the year notations, you would not be able to pinpoint when major US gun control laws were passed. Whether you assumed an immediate effect or a delayed one, you can't do it. Because there is no correlation.

I think that firearm violence can be reduced most effectively by looking at the issue of violence in general. Social and economic policies that make crime less attractive and which give people better options are likely to do more good than a ban that a criminal is not going to follow and which is technologically unenforceable. Police policy that focuses on known offenders has a demonstrated and significant effect that does not rely on a "shotgun" approach against the entire population.

As examples of cultures which have no hangups on guns, I would point to Switzerland and Czech Republic. Both of which have schemes more regulated than the US, but far less than other places in Europe and the firearm murder rates in both are staggeringly low compared to the US. Switzerland holds the worlds largest shooting competition each year, and marksmanship is a course you can take in school, and no one freaks out if they see someone with an assault rifle over their shoulder in public. The Czech Republic has shooting as the country's third most popular sport. To put that in perspective, the four most popular sports in the US are baseball, football, basketball and hockey. So imagine two of those being displace to fourth and fifth place to make room for shooting, and that's how popular it would be. The Czech Republic also allows concealed carry.

It is not the existence or possession of an object that is a problem, it is the attitudes of people that needs to be changed. America is a violent society even when you look at non-gun murders, so if you want to reduce the violence, you need to do it through the people, not their possessions.

1. You are not thinking far enough with 3D-printers. If we can 3D-print a drone and a gun, we can 3D-print a drone with a gun. Will owning a drone or a gun or a drone with a gun protect you from a drone with a gun? Or will it enable you to protect somebody from a drone with a gun?
More firepower isn't the solution.

2. You cannot compare guns to alcohol or drugs. People want guns because of rational reasons. Unlike guns, alcohol and drugs are consumables and the consumption is driven by emotional impulses. People can wait until the vendor has the gun they want. People cannot wait to smoke crack and inject themselves with krokodil.

3. "We will kill each other less efficiently if there are no guns." Here, have a machete and a gun-free zone. How many people will you be able to kill in the 10 seconds it takes the crowd to realize that there is a murder going on and to overcome panic and counter-attack?
Here, have a gun and concealed-carry. How many people will you be able to kill in the 10 seconds it takes before a gunman starts shooting at you?
That is not morally bankrupt. That is acknowledging that mass murder is not a bug of gun-ownership. It's a feature.

4. You are mixing two things here: The future as you want it to be and the future that comes from the limited choices we face.
You want a liberal future 'n stuff. So do I. But I am willing to admit that I can be wrong. If the liberal future turns out to have bad side-effects, I am willing to abandon that ideal and work for something that brings greater benefits than a liberal future.



On the topic of freedom:
- If you throw around statistics, links please.
- I don't think that Mexico is a valid example for strict gun-laws. They are one step away from all-out civil war there.
- I agree that US-culture sadly encourages violence. I agree that the removal of violent culture and the economic need for violent crime would be better at curbing gun violence than banning guns. However, I think that this violence is deeply ingrained into US-culture from the very founding and it cannot be excised without a coordinated mass-effort of media and education.

There are people in the US who think that gay people are Satan's spawn, who think that the US wants to invade Texas, who think that a national emergency notification system for smartphones is really a tool for Obama to blast his propaganda everywhere, there are people who distrust smart people so much that they believe that climate-change is just a hoax they concocted, there are people who think that a movie about tap-dancing penguins was part of the gay agenda, there are people who want to believe that a mass-murder of black people is really an attack on their precious Christianity...

What do you think would happen if educators started designing school-books with an emphasis on everybody living together in happiness and peace?



That leaves violent crime. (I have to think of the pirates of Yemen here.) All-in-all I think that the US is too capitalistic to make honest work economically more attractive than violent crime. For that, the US-economy would have to be geared towards the needs of the worker. But it is geared towards the needs of the corporations, and neither political party is strong enough (or even has the will) to slay that kraken.

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435011772&sr=1-1&keywords=the+better+angels+of+our+nature+why+violence+has+declined

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

And there will never be a time in your life when there aren't evil psychotic fuckers walking around looking to commit heinous acts of mass violence. So, you can either be a victim, a gun owner, or lucky. pick one.

I refuse to accept mass-murders as normal.

If they were "normal", people on DU would not talk about them. Which is why you do not hear about the "normal" hundreds of rapes each day in the US. Or, yesterday, about 8 people in the US were beaten or stabbed to death and 90 or so died in auto accidents and about 1,600 died of cancer. But, they did not all die in the same place at the same time, so it was merely "normal" and so average DU users don't give a rat's ass.

Non-normal events are by their nature statistical aberrations. That makes them "news", and attracts people whose attention spans are so short and intellect so shallow that they can only be motivated by garish or ghoulish headlines.

Generally speaking, those people are also totally useless when it comes to formulating sound policy on the matter in question, and worse than useless if politicians think they can score points by catering to them (aka the US Patriot Act and its consequences). Anyone in the next few weeks who demands immediate action is doing so because they want decisions to be made emotionally rather than rationally, and I'll oppose that sort of attitude on general principle. You don't make decisions affecting people's lives while emotionally agitated.

But, if you do have a way to "break" the system, the "system" being human nature, let's hear it. Because simply changing laws is not going to erase technology. Prohibition and the War on (some) Drugs in the US is proof enough of that, as well as being a lesson in unintended consequences.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/06/18/charleston-deaths-are-an-american-tragedy-mass-shootings-are-rising/

"Take school shootings: Between 2000 and 2010, there were as many multi-fatality school shootings in the United States as there were in China, England, France, Germany, India, Russia and 30 other countries — combined."

Also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/



And for "breaking" the system that is human nature:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/guns-mass-killings-worldwide/1776191/

"The USA leads the world in gun ownership, but it's our individualistic culture that puts us at greater risk of mass shootings compared with other countries where guns are prevalent, according to a British criminologist who has studied gun violence in different nations.

Mass shooters in any nation tend to be loners with not much social support who strike out at their communities, schools and families, says Peter Squires of the University of Brighton in the United Kingdom, who has studied mass shootings in his own country, the United States and Europe.

Many other countries where gun ownership is high, such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Israel, however, tend to have more tight-knit societies where a strong social bond supports people through crises, and mass killings are fewer, Squires said."


----------------------------------------

That leaves us with two possible solutions for gun-violence in the US:
Option 1: Remove guns from society.
Option 2: Change US-culture from the worshipping of the individual to a sense of community and egality.

Which solution will be easier to employ?

Give me the total deaths from these mass murders and compare it to the total deaths from all murders, and I am pretty sure I'll be able to pick which one of those two totals is the (sadly) "normal" one.

Also: The FBI’s bogus report on mass shootings

To answer your question: From a practical and legal standpoint, obviously Option 2.

Which, or how many, mass shootings are regularly reflected on in the US?
Which are remembered and talked about and unforgotten as a scar on the soul of the nation?
"On this day, seven years ago, we lost many friends and colleagues..."
For example: Is there anybody who talks about the Columbine school shooting anymore?
How many many mass murders and school shootings from the lasts years can you name right now from the top of your head?



The Charleston-shooting will MAYBE get media-coverage on its 1-year-anniversary. Are you willing to place a bet that anybody from the mainstream-media will report on the Charleston-shooting 2 years from now?
Or will it get replaced by another mass shooting that is totally shocking and outrageous and unexplainable and unforeseeable and unique?



We only remember remarkable things. If we fail to remember it, it wasn't remarkable but generic stuff that happens all the time.

As for what the news will cover, recent news always takes priority over old news. Old news is "history".

We only remember remarkable things that either agree with our worldview or are neutral to it. How many incidents can you recall where a civilian with a gun stopped a mass shooting from happening? Exactly. You probably cannot recall any of them. That does not mean they haven't happened, though.

We can certainly learn from Charleston, but I doubt we will. If it turns out the shooter used the Colt 1911 pistol, what we would have to learn would be:

1) magazine limits would not have helped
2) "assault weapon" bans would not have helped
3) "gun free zones" would not have helped
4) restricting guns to designs over a hundred years old would not have helped

The man was disturbed and that is putting it lightly. And he already had criminal connections (a prior drug arrest), so if it was illegal for him to own a gun with his drug conviction, that's no indication that he could not have gotten his hands on one through other means. And it is perfectly possible to be violent and racist and kill a lot of people at a church without any guns at all.

To me, Charleston is a prime case where social measures and mental health measures could have done far more to prevent the crime than simple prohibition. I imagine your belief is the opposite. The difference is that I have no desire to coerce you into following mine...

I'd suggest two things. First a question, is the murder of 9 people in a single act of violence more heinous than the murder of 9 people in 9 separate acts?

One person has only so much hatred. Murdering 9 people in 9 acts means that the perpetrator faced the decision of killing a human 9 times and answered it 9 times. Murdering 9 people in 1 act means that he faced the decision 1 time and answered it 1 time: These 9 lives together meant less to him than 9 individual lives, which means that he dehumanized his victims, which means that doesn't treat his acts of murder as murder.

For the victims, there is no difference between individual murders and mass-murder.
For the perpetrator it means a mental disconnect from the fact that the victims are persons.
That's why mass-murder is worse.



If you scroll down, you will find that Shamash and I have already hashed this out.

0. It's important to decide whether you want a decrease of gun-violence to an acceptable level or whether you want gun-violence down to zero. You also have to decide what you give greater priority to: security or freedom. That decides which solutions are applicable.
1. I no longer think that an all-out ban of guns would reduce gun-violence to zero or even to a level that I subjectively am okay with.
2. Likewise, history and computer-simulations have shown that "more weapons" is not a solution to "too much violence".
3. I found an article by a british criminologist (link in one of my posts here): He found that it's not the number of guns but the US' culture of violence and selfishness that leads to the remarkably high level of gun-violence in the US.

0. We disagree on which is more important, but it is a well-written point nonetheless

1. I fully agree. In a US population of more than 300,000,000 people a certain number of bad things are statistically inevitable and that number is always higher than I would like it to be, whether for drunk driving fatalities, toddlers poisoning themselves with brightly colored dishwasher capsules or someone getting murdered (by gun or otherwise) over a meaningless disagreement.

2. Agree within limits. I think there is also insufficient evidence to show that "less of weapon X" solves it either, but rather deflects it to "weapon Y" (see UK and Australian crime rates pre- and post-ban to suggest this is true). I would not be surprised at all to find there is an optimum level of ownership for item #1 purposes that is neither 0% nor 100%.

3. Agree. Our rates of non-gun murder are also higher. Which is one of the main reasons I prefer a social approach to violence in general rather than a possession-based one that deals with only one facet, and this also goes with my views on "security vs. freedom" in item #0.

This may be based on my not making myself clear. I infer from many remarks I've noticed over my lifetime that Americans are very big on the idea of fairness. This why, in my mind, we see acts of aggression as evil. As expressed in the Declaration of Independence, "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." and government's principle role is the protection of those rights. Criminal law is based on obtaining a solution for the problem of those who most heinously take advantage of another, depriving him/her of those basic rights.

Society experiences a loss from a murder (or any crime). We look at the perpetrator as acting so as to fail to respect laws and rights the rest of us value. In addition to the individual's loss (property, injury, etc) we all lose since crime is affrontive to law.

My sense of justice is offended by treating the murder of one of those nine from Charleston different from the murder of another killed in single instance of murder.

It's okay to mow down masses of faceless stormtroopers or faceless vaguely arabic terrorists. It is acceptable to subject teenagers to this kind of entertainment.
It's not okay to show a breast. It is unacceptable to subject teenagers to this kind of entertainment because it might give them ideas.
That's the rules Hollywood operates by.
That's the morals they have been feeding the US-public for at least 2 decades now.
That's the morals they have been spreading world-wide to audiences.



American exceptionalism, that's the doctrine that the US has the right to do things that others don't have the right to. And what are those "things"? Violence. (Torture? That's not torture if Americans do it. Drone-strikes on the soil of sovereign foreign countries that lead to dead foreign civilians? That's okay, because the US did it.)



Americans are big on the idea of fairness... as long as that fairness means bringing others down to your level.
"Let's topple the british king."
"Let's topple the communist guys who try to do their own thing."
"How can you possibly like Elizabeth Warren??? She's a professor!!! Smart people are arrogant assholes who use their self-proclaimed smartness to look down on real people with real folk-wisdom! They are such pricks, they are even pranking us with a climate-change hoax!"

If that fairness means elevating others to your level, it becomes something evil.
"Gay marriage is legal? Well, now my marriage is worthless."
"Other religions than mine are now acceptable? That means that Christianity is under attack."
"Healthcare isn't a right, it's a privilege."
"We should make it harder for some kinds of people to vote."

Act of aggression = a unilateral action by one or more perpetrators involving violence against another excluding acts of self-defense. Maybe Hollywood, video games, genetically modified foods or solar wind have some contributing effect but we are each fundamentally responsible for our own actions.

What is it about fairness/justice that presents a problem for you?

Please explain your perception of "my level"?

Maybe we should learn to discern between abbreviated soundbites that were made to symbolize a point that already has been discussed at length elsewhere and soundbites that actually are a point.

Or go give it a try in one of the Hiliary vs. Bernie flame-fests and see if you have any better luck there...

Oh, wait...it's a gun thread on DU. Never mind...

Disclaimer: Completely independent of the statement the OP listed, Charles Cotton is a dick (look up some of his past statements), so don't imply I support him.

If the church had burned down and killed several people, and the pastor had previously demanded and gotten a "no fire extinguishers" policy for that church, would statements of the form "eight of his church members who might be alive if he had allowed fire extinguishers in the church" be considered something worthy of DU outrage?

If so, good for you, at least you are consistent. If not, it is a tacit admission that your reaction is based on who is saying it rather than what they are saying and you really ought to ask yourself if that is the best way to measure these things.

Now, if you want to find some really prime specimens for victim blaming, our good friends at Westboro Baptist are already blaming the shooting on Hilary Clinton. Cotton, bless his shriveled little heart, at least articulated a reason. Westboro is blaming Hilary pretty much "because Jesus".

folks may rethink their position.

We all know how much as a society Christian hate is promoted, it's time they fought back by refusing to be easy targets. Christianity doesn't have a "martyr" badge to be earned, so there's no glory in dying.


This guy is a class A asshole, blaming the victim is never cool, it's as bad as blaming guns.

Okay, my strongest objection to the NRA is that they're effectively a branch of the GOP in terms of their political involvement, but the tone-deaf, fuckwitted pronouncements of their upper-level management are just cringeworthy.

To wit, Sir Alec Guiness's description of Mos Eisley from Star Wars:
&quot a) wretched hive of scum and villainy"...

..."wretched hive of greed and hyperbole."

Wait. Wait...

Gun owners all have blood on their hands. We've been told that repeatedly over the last couple days, and many many times previously. Gun owners in general are, at the very least, 1 step farther removed from the shooting, than Clementa Pinckney was. I see gun owners as being more than 1 step farther removed, personally.


How can gun owners all have blood on their hands, if the victim that you guys say is being blamed, does not?


Until that question is answered, I just can't buy into the outrage.

On Sat Jun 20, 2015, 07:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Wait. Wait...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=169280

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

You aren't the victim here, and I don't buy in to your off topic outrage trying to make yourself the victim in this thread.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 20, 2015, 07:22 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is stupid alert is stupid. One question here. Why are you responding to the poster in an alert instead of responding to the poster in the thread? I think the statement in your alert would be better served being posted to the DUer in the thread instead of the jury . Of course I'm not the victim here and I am certainly not outraged. I haven't posted in the thread and I always avoid OPs like this. So I'm going to leave.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: That's some ugly 'blame the victim' stuff and needs to be hidden.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I voted to leave it alone but these gun lovers do love their guns. I know they sleep with them . I wonder what they do with them when they are awake!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't understand the alert. The poster is discussing. On a discussion board.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thanks oneshooter, for posting the 4-3 split decision. I love Monday morning QB'g 2ndA court decisions too.
I especially liked the replies from these jurors, regarding beevul's post:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: Post is stupid alert is stupid.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: That's some ugly 'blame the victim' stuff and needs to be hidden.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: I voted to leave it alone but these gun lovers do love their guns. I know they sleep with them . I wonder what they do with them when they are awake!

Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given

Which one do you like best? readers? maybe a poll?

beevul's post in question: Wait. Wait... Gun owners all have blood on their hands. We've been told that repeatedly over the last couple days, and many many times previously. Gun owners in general are, at the very least, 1 step farther removed from the shooting, than Clementa Pinckney was. I see gun owners as being more than 1 step farther removed, personally. How can gun owners all have blood on their hands, if the victim that you guys say is being blamed, does not? Until that question is answered, I just can't buy into the outrage.

Why is someone alerting for what, clearly, is not a TOS violation?

It appears the pro-control side; not content with their own echo-chamber, where never is heard a dissenting word; now wish to police the speech of others in different groups. It shows a lot of confidence in one's arguments if the reflexive response is to attempt to silence anyone who disagrees. YMMV

That one will revel in what the jurors in this case say, yet...

That one will also never ever touch on what was legitimately alert worthy in the first place.

Basically, its just "I'm going to quote anti-gun sentiments, originally said by jurors, pretend its relevant, and then engage in a point and snicker campaign".

One often needs to call a doctor, and I choose one by the name of Leonard for this occasion:

This juror acts as if I claimed victimhood, and yet I never did. Must be an anti-gunner trying to spin it.



I just LOVE that one. Comparing and contrasting the treatment and characterizations of two different entities, one characterized as the victim yet the other as "blood on its hands", even though the "blood on its hands" entity is farther removed from the shooting, is "blaming the victim? Nope. Its just doing an intellectual honesty evaluation which of course, is the source of the objections. The intellectually dishonest anti-gunners (from the department of redundancy department) do not like the light shined on them or their intellectual bankruptcy.


The culture war alert 'jihadists' have been, and continue to be, very busy.

I'd advise everyone to be extra careful, as their new tactic seems to be to let a bunch of posts add up followed by multiple alerts on targeted individuals. Hack got hit with two BS hides in exactly that fashion.

They can't win the argument, so they seek to suppress and silence it AKA business as usual.