Coach Tuesday Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Oh I can play this game too: Why ask why? What is the meaning of 'is'? Great taste or less filling? How about a better question that you won't answer? Why are you trying to co-opt the murder of 20 children - before the bodies are even cold - to push a political point? My apologies, I did not realize I was debating with a mouth-breather.
Koko78 Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 My apologies, I did not realize I was debating with a mouth-breather. That's fine, I knew I was debating with a piece of trash.
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 If anyone's got any reasonable take on what should be done to prevent things like this I'm all ears. But a bunch of idealistic, knee-jerk, anti-gun rhetoric that selectively ignores the reality of the situation bores me. I agree that these things should be discussed through the prism of politics because politics isn't just an academic exercise. Real people suffer real consequences from the decisions of our political leaders.
B-Man Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Been here far longer than you newbie. Don't like it? Oh well... You just keep getting sillier and sillier "Been here far longer than you newbie." like that adds to your flailing attempts of discussion ? ? ? You're entering Dave in Norfolk territory ..................lol . Edited December 15, 2012 by B-Man
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds It occurs to me that some of you may not have seen this before. The genetic argument, that is...of course there seems to be some question about the chicken and egg here. If anyone's got any reasonable take on what should be done to prevent things like this I'm all ears. But a bunch of idealistic, knee-jerk, anti-gun rhetoric that selectively ignores the reality of the situation bores me. I agree that these things should be discussed through the prism of politics because politics isn't just an academic exercise. Real people suffer real consequences from the decisions of our political leaders. I think we could probably start by taking a page out of the book of countries that a lower incidence of these types of problems than we do. Pretty much any other country will do in this case. It's obnoxiously obvious to all but the most staunch gun advocates that we're doing something wrong. No real need to re-invent the wheel here.
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Classic liberal. Make decisions on emotion. This is EXACTLY the time to talk about it and do something about it. You know, before the next new shiny news item de jour takes 'Merica's collective ADD-addled brain onto the next big news item. I didn't have a cause with regard to this issue up until now, but this pisses me off and it seems clear to me. This has got to stop, Any Rand and her crazy paranoid bullsh*t be damned. Looks like I need to repeat myself.
Adam Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 If anyone's got any reasonable take on what should be done to prevent things like this I'm all ears. But a bunch of idealistic, knee-jerk, anti-gun rhetoric that selectively ignores the reality of the situation bores me. I agree that these things should be discussed through the prism of politics because politics isn't just an academic exercise. Real people suffer real consequences from the decisions of our political leaders. Well, first comes the premise that it is nearly impossible to remove guns from our society. Second, they are too easy for those who are mentally ill to get a hold of. I think statement one can't be changed, but statement two can be attacked. Why not bring the NRA in on the discussion on how to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill? Yes, there is the problem of how to define that, but including those who wish to protect gun right in the discussion should help solve that problem in a way that is beneficial to everyone. As was said, you can't fix crazy, but you can make it harder. Banning guns at this point would prove to be the same mistake prohibition was.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 You just keep getting sillier and sillier "Been here far longer than you newbie." like that adds to your flailing attempts of discussion ? ? ? You're entering Dave in Norfolk territory ..................lol If only I could bring as much insight to the conversation as you are this evening... "Everybody shut up about it! You're using this tragedy to further your political agenda! Sick! Discussion=bad!" Looks like I need to repeat myself. It's a fair point, big guy. I am emotional about this obviously. I have kids that are of the same age as the ones killed today and it really hits home. However, I don't think that a week's time is really going to make me feel any different about it after this one. I'm not a policy-maker, just a pissed off parent.
B-Man Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 In response to today's shooting, Rupert Murdoch asks: “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” Appalling ignorance. the answer to Murdoch’s question is “1934.” Heh. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159650/
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 In response to today's shooting, Rupert Murdoch asks: “When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons?” Appalling ignorance. the answer to Murdoch’s question is “1934.” Heh. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/159650/ Oh, Rupert... The end is nigh!
....lybob Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 !@#$ you, you filthy, worthless piece of **** for politicizing a tragedy. You're less than garbage. Fake outrage, sociopaths like TYTT don't have real emotions.
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) I think we could probably start by taking a page out of the book of countries that a lower incidence of these types of problems than we do. Pretty much any other country will do in this case. It's obnoxiously obvious to all but the most staunch gun advocates that we're doing something wrong. No real need to re-invent the wheel here. What, specifically (as opposed to generally) is the problem, what is the presumed cause of the problem, what other factors need to be considered, what are our basis for comparison, how constant are the variables we are not accounting for, what other examples run counter to our theory, and what evidence do we have to support a belief that our proposed solutions will have the desired effect? Edited December 15, 2012 by Rob's House
3rdnlng Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 If only I could bring as much insight to the conversation as you are this evening... "Everybody shut up about it! You're using this tragedy to further your political agenda! Sick! Discussion=bad!" It's a fair point, big guy. I am emotional about this obviously. I have kids that are of the same age as the ones killed today and it really hits home. However, I don't think that a week's time is really going to make me feel any different about it after this one. I'm not a policy-maker, just a pissed off parent. I made a similar point in the other thread on this subject. How do demographics enter into the equation of gun violence? I wonder how cities like Detroit and Chicago that are historically democrat controlled stack up against Salt Lake City? Does illegal alien penetration of certain cities cause more violence? How about the gangsta culture?
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 What, specifically (as opposed to generally) is the problem, what is the presumed cause of the problem, what other factors need to be considered, what are our basis for comparison, how constant are the variables we are not accounting for, what other examples run counter to our theory, and what evidence do we have to support a belief that our proposed solutions will have the desired effect? The discrepancy between how often this happens here as opposed to anywhere else is pretty dramatic, don't you think? I'm not going to write an essay for you Rob.
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 Well, first comes the premise that it is nearly impossible to remove guns from our society. Second, they are too easy for those who are mentally ill to get a hold of. I think statement one can't be changed, but statement two can be attacked. Why not bring the NRA in on the discussion on how to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill? Yes, there is the problem of how to define that, but including those who wish to protect gun right in the discussion should help solve that problem in a way that is beneficial to everyone. As was said, you can't fix crazy, but you can make it harder. Banning guns at this point would prove to be the same mistake prohibition was. I agree with you. The only problem is when we get into trying to classify crazy & alter the rights for those it applies to things get complicated. Personally, I'd feel better knowing my daughter had an armed cop at the school, & an NRA type gym teacher had a carry concealed permit and a piece he keeps on him, than knowing she's in a "gun free school zone". The discrepancy between how often this happens here as opposed to anywhere else is pretty dramatic, don't you think? I'm not going to write an essay for you Rob. Not looking for an essay, or even an answer; just illustrating the kind of analysis necessary to draw a meaningful conclusion. I'm curious as to both what "this" is (specifically) & what the basis is for determining it happens with disproportionate frequency here before delving into further analysis.
Adam Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 I agree with you. The only problem is when we get into trying to classify crazy & alter the rights for those it applies to things get complicated. Personally, I'd feel better knowing my daughter had an armed cop at the school, & an NRA type gym teacher had a carry concealed permit and a piece he keeps on him, than knowing she's in a "gun free school zone". A friend of mine said this afternoon that there should be armed guards at schools. That won't fix the problem either. Only a matter of the till someone with issues got a job as an armed guard and shoots up a school as well. Te two sides need to stop arguing and start the dialogue. There is no easy fix, but if they put there heads together, they should at least be able to make it tougher for things like this to happen.
Buftex Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 This article appeared in the Austin American Statesmen....on Thursday...poor timing, if nothing else.... http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/herman-perry-curious-about-why-were-not-no-1-in-co/nTWTh/
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 I agree with you. The only problem is when we get into trying to classify crazy & alter the rights for those it applies to things get complicated. Personally, I'd feel better knowing my daughter had an armed cop at the school, & an NRA type gym teacher had a carry concealed permit and a piece he keeps on him, than knowing she's in a "gun free school zone". Not looking for an essay, or even an answer; just illustrating the kind of analysis necessary to draw a meaningful conclusion. I'm curious as to both what "this" is (specifically) & what the basis is for determining it happens with disproportionate frequency here before delving into further analysis. The basis for determining it happens with disproportionate frequency is the number of times it happens here vs. the number of times it happens elsewhere. Is that helpful?
Rob's House Posted December 15, 2012 Posted December 15, 2012 A friend of mine said this afternoon that there should be armed guards at schools. That won't fix the problem either. Only a matter of the till someone with issues got a job as an armed guard and shoots up a school as well. Te two sides need to stop arguing and start the dialogue. There is no easy fix, but if they put there heads together, they should at least be able to make it tougher for things like this to happen. We're all having the dialogue right now (shouldn't it be a polylogue? But I digress). There's no perfect world. All we can try to do is maximize the good, minimize the bad, and bang out as many hot chicks as we can. The basis for determining it happens with disproportionate frequency is the number of times it happens here vs. the number of times it happens elsewhere. Is that helpful? No, because I still don't know what "it" is.
Gene Frenkle Posted December 15, 2012 Author Posted December 15, 2012 We're all having the dialogue right now (shouldn't it be a polylogue? But I digress). There's no perfect world. All we can try to do is maximize the good, minimize the bad, and bang out as many hot chicks as we can. No, because I still don't know what "it" is. Oh, people shooting people with guns. Does that clear things up?
Recommended Posts