Last Vegas strip shooting: More than 20 dead, 100 injured after gunman opens fire near Mandalay Bay

[zinfamous]

Im confused about what is this thing. Are these people who think global warming is a joke and are dumping pollution into the air in protest?

yes. There are some seriously stupid people in this country that have been sucking at the teat of intentionally misleading info distillation from their masters (the G.O.P. and their energy-based money handlers). This is the kind of response you get when such people are gaslighted well beyond the capacity for reflective, reasoned consideration of the actual facts behind the various issues that we face today.

 

[purbeast0]

Nearly 120 pages into this thread and I still have no clue why people are trying to compare smoking cigarettes to guns.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Are you protesting global warming every time you purchase a cow-based product? My guess is no, so why do you assume that of coal rollers?

Please, tell me you see a difference between those two.

 

[momeNt]

Please, tell me you see a difference between those two.

Cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than car emissions. The difference is clear. Commuting is something a lot of people have to do in order to survive, supporting the cattle industry is not. So while having marginally worse car emissions because you enjoy rolling coal, while bad, is not nearly as bad as refusing to consider alternatives to the most damaging livestock on our planet.

I really wish more people understood this the way you and I do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than car emissions. The difference is clear. Commuting is something a lot of people have to do in order to survive, supporting the cattle industry is not. So while having marginally worse car emissions because you enjoy rolling coal, while bad, is not nearly as bad as refusing to consider alternatives to the most damaging livestock on our planet.

I really wish more people understood this the way you and I do.

Every duh-version imaginable, huh?

 

[mdram]

suicides....so what you gun nutters (looking at you, slowspider) are saying, is that you don't really care about actual deaths, because suicides don't count.

got it.

if someone really wants to commit suicide, not having a gun wont stop them
so no, i dont count suicides,

i wonder if they are counted in car wrecks, knife deaths, ect

 

[ch33zw1z]

Cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than car emissions. The difference is clear. Commuting is something a lot of people have to do in order to survive, supporting the cattle industry is not. So while having marginally worse car emissions because you enjoy rolling coal, while bad, is not nearly as bad as refusing to consider alternatives to the most damaging livestock on our planet.

I really wish more people understood this the way you and I do.

Easy, that's a false premise to start with. When it comes down to it, eating is necessary to survive. More specific, consuming usable energy is.

You're thinking is basically - the planet is fucked, so fuck it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

if someone really wants to commit suicide, not having a gun wont stop them
so no, i dont count suicides,

i wonder if they are counted in car wrecks, knife deaths, ect

Guns just make it far more likely you will be successful in the attempt.

 

[momeNt]

suicides....so what you gun nutters (looking at you, slowspider) are saying, is that you don't really care about actual deaths, because suicides don't count.

got it.

Well, yes and no, suicides have absolutely no bearing on certain gun control legislation, which I think everybody can agree on.

Automatic firearms, suppressors, magazine limits, trigger modifications, limit to the number of guns you can own, ammo restrictions, microstamping... the list goes on. None of those are designed to stop suicide. Very little of the conversation around gun control has anything to do with suicides, except for the numbers themselves.

 

[momeNt]

Easy, that's a false premise to start with. When it comes down to it, eating is necessary to survive. More specific, consuming usable energy is.

You're thinking is basically - the planet is fucked, so fuck it.

Provide me an alternate solution that can be immediately implemented to replace vehicle based transportation. Bikes don't, mass commute doesn't always, walking certainly doesn't. Electric vehicles can't yet.

Provide me an alternate solution that can immediately replace the cattle industry.

Please, don't be dense. Stand with me in the fight against cattle.

Understand that when you order that 16 oz T-bone with a glass of milk, that YOU are the problem, not the coal roller.

 

[momeNt]

Every duh-version imaginable, huh?

You are the one who started talking about squirting. You diverted.

Own up to it you coward.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Provide me an alternate solution that can be immediately implemented to replace vehicle based transportation. Bikes don't, mass commute doesn't always, walking certainly doesn't. Electric vehicles can't yet.

Provide me an alternate solution that can immediately replace the cattle industry.

Please, don't be dense. Stand with me in the fight against cattle.

Understand that when you order that 16 oz T-bone with a glass of milk, that YOU are the problem, not the coal roller.

i do neither, drive a car that gets 35+ mpg, and eat beef once a week.

the alternative to fucking the planet is using our resources wisely, and pushing towards renewables.

your all or nothing conundrum is a foolish game, you can play it all by yourself...but surrounded by your peers I bet it feels cozy.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are the one who started talking about squirting. You diverted.

Own up to it you coward.

I know you do when all that hot lead is flying out of the barrel of your gun...

 

[momeNt]

I know you do when all that hot lead is flying out of the barrel of your gun...

See you are trying to be antagonizing instead of having meaningful discussion. It is why nobody takes you and your duh-versions, seriously, instead we joke with you to get your peter piper putter fluffering.

 

[momeNt]

i do neither, drive a car that gets 35+ mpg, and eat beef once a week.

the alternative to fucking the planet is using our resources wisely, and pushing towards renewables.

your all or nothing conundrum is a foolish game, you can play it all by yourself...but surrounded by your peers I bet it feels cozy.

So... what was the difference between those two you wanted to initially point out anyways?

 

[ch33zw1z]

So... what was the difference between those two you wanted to initially point out anyways?

you mean this post?

Got anything besides all or nothing?

 

[momeNt]

you mean this post?

Got anything besides all or nothing?

No this.

Im confused about what is this thing. Are these people who think global warming is a joke and are dumping pollution into the air in protest?

Are you protesting global warming every time you purchase a cow-based product? My guess is no, so why do you assume that of coal rollers?

Please, tell me you see a difference between those two.

 

[SlowSpyder]

First guns are not people. So banning an inanimate object is not the same as banning a group of people.

Second I have not advocated a blanket ban on firearms. That's your own projection.

My beef is with those who justify their ownership of weapons by saying more weapons makes them safer. Outside of very specific individuals and circumstances it does not.

What real scientific data we have shows that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Of course it's hard to get good data since your new buds at the NRA are frightened of what the evidence would show.

Underestimating the risk from owning a gun is also a pretty standard psychological response to risk. People tend to overestimate the danger from risk they don't feel they control and underestimate the ones they feel they do control. Hence why some who won't fly are fine driving even though your more likely die in a car by a couple of orders of magnitude.

It doesn't matter that one is an object and the other is people. It is the same, some warped xenophobia towards an object or the good ol' standard xenophobia vs. a demographic of people. And both groups in this case are full of kneejerk reactions to the things that scare them. You are the equivalent of a scared 'murican type, just on the anti-2A side of the fence. No one has ordered an outright ban of Muslims either, but we both know there are those that'd love such a thing, or certainly wouldn't argue against it if it happened. Exactly the same scenario with guns. Anti-2A'ers are no different than the anti-Muslim xenophobe types, the anti-2A'ers just put their fear on an object.

And that is a worthless and useless blanket stat. I imagine depending on where you live and many other factors guns could make you less safe or more safe, but I bet those situations have a lot to do with lifestyles people choose to live and the company they keep.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And that's exactly what my linked post addressed.

So you want to think that coal rollers are just good ole God fearin' people who don't do it in protest, and that somebody supplying their body with calories is worse.

We know how to curb carbon emissions in vehicles.

And if you know how to curb carbon emissions from the beef industry, then have at it.

edit: spyder snuck in there, clearing up the quote:

No this.

Really, are you trying to pull a Trump here?

"well, they think cigarettes is a moronic comparison, so let's give 'em cattle, then we'll settle at cigarettes"

 

[Jhhnn]

See you are trying to be antagonizing instead of having meaningful discussion. It is why nobody takes you and your duh-versions, seriously, instead we joke with you to get your peter piper putter fluffering.

Meaningful discussion about all the duh-versions offered by gun nuts in this thread, including second hand smoke, autos, rolling coal & cow emissions?

What's so enjoyable about having a high rate of fire, anyway? Does it not spark the imagination? What else is it good for outside of actual combat & massacre?

 

[zinfamous]

Nearly 120 pages into this thread and I still have no clue why people are trying to compare smoking cigarettes to guns.

something like this:

 

[ch33zw1z]

Meaningful discussion about all the duh-versions offered by gun nuts in this thread, including second hand smoke, autos, rolling coal & cow emissions?

What's so enjoyable about having a high rate of fire, anyway? Does it not spark the imagination? What else is it good for outside of actual combat & massacre?

When the cows take over, you're gonna be happy you can unleash a world of pain on them.

 

[zinfamous]

if someone really wants to commit suicide, not having a gun wont stop them
so no, i dont count suicides,

i wonder if they are counted in car wrecks, knife deaths, ect

this was directed specifically at slowpsider, because he thinks evil liberals don't actually care about deaths. It's the same reason he thinks arguing about smoking is relevant. It's just as disingenuous to toss suicides out of the equation, while also trying to toss in smoking and claim that "actual deaths matter." (slowspider is trying to do both at the same time, because he is an extremely stupid person)

Point is, deaths matter, as always. And the discussion is about guns, so gun deaths always matter.

 

[SlowSpyder]

this was directed specifically at slowpsider, because he thinks evil liberals don't actually care about deaths. It's the same reason he thinks arguing about smoking is relevant. It's just as disingenuous to toss suicides out of the equation, while also trying to toss in smoking and claim that "actual deaths matter." (slowspider is trying to do both at the same time, because he is an extremely stupid person)

Point is, deaths matter, as always. And the discussion is about guns, so gun deaths always matter.

You are being obtuse? We have freedoms that can and do kill us. A comparison is smoking vs. guns, which does more harm, which kills more, which is more heavily regulated. What is reasonable to do to restrict either? And when you compare guns to other things, it is clear they do less harm than the anti-2A'ers try to pretend they do. And if the anti-2A'ers really cared about saving lives they'd be at least as passionate about restricting alcohol and tobacco as they are guns. But they don't, they never start those threads, they never push politicians to run on such platforms. You hold guns to an unfair standard you hold nothing else to. You can keep up the piddly insults, they don't change reality of what I said, and that is that you do not care about saving lives, you care about an anti-2A agenda.

 

[Paratus]

if someone really wants to commit suicide, not having a gun wont stop them
so no, i dont count suicides,

i wonder if they are counted in car wrecks, knife deaths, ect

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a large portion of suicides are spur of the moment decisions.

Old story but one I was aware of through a friend:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/15/sports/pro-football-a-friend-dies-and-oiler-kills-himself.html

• NFL football player was out driving with a friend after a party.
• They crash and his friend is thrown from the car and killed
• The player retrieves a shot gun from the legal gun rack in his car and blows his own head off after seeing his dead friend

Easy access to a gun at the wrong time enabled his suicide. Five more minutes and help would have been there and he most likely would never have tried suicide again.