"If it saves one life"

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:11 pm

Fox wrote:

I'm not policing it, I'm laughing at it and enjoying it. I consider it an excellent sign when people respond with anger, sarcasm, and personal attacks, because it means that's all they've got.

Of course, I have to protest calling Christina Hoff Sommers "an obscure person." Based Mom, an obscure person? C'mon! We gotta have some standards! Very Happy

Enjoy away. Many of us don't consider 17 dead kids a laughing matter.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:16 pm

Fox wrote:

I'm not policing it, I'm laughing at it and enjoying it. Well, we can ban whatever we like. Now that the Mexican cartels are in the gun and ammo manufacturing business, it won't matter.

Of course, I have to protest calling Christina Hoff Sommers "an obscure person." Based Mom, an obscure person? C'mon! We gotta have some standards! Very Happy

So, given how snarky and sarcastic that is, I guess its all you got.

↑ WhatFor ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:26 pm

Fox wrote:

It is beyond my comprehension how you are laughing at and enjoying the tone of a discussion about gun control that's spurred by the murder of 17 children.

You continuously try to derail other people's threads by making inflammatory and misleading comments about unrelated issues. Other posters then have the option of either going off topic but correcting your spread of m/disinformation, or ignoring it and allowing you to spread m/disinformation all over this forum.

If you enjoy it as much as you profess to, there's a word for people like you. If this is unintentional, please pay attention to the topic and if you see your post has nothing to do with it, please start a spinoff thread so the rest of us can continue the discussion the op started.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:35 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Enjoy away. Many of us don't consider 17 dead kids a laughing matter.

I was actually waiting for this, though it really needs a pursed lips emoji to go with it! I specifically said I was enjoying the sarcasm, not the dead kids.

It's just so typical. Can't get under someone's skin using sarcasm and personal attacks? Rearrange subjects and objects so it sounds like she's enjoying the fact that kids are dead.

It's a clever trick, and Chris Cuomo is a master at it, but even Imamothers who disagree with me at times aren't going to say, "Wow! Fox is enjoying the fact that 17 people are dead."

Sorry, but people can disagree with you -- even on big, important issues -- and still be good people.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:41 pm

WhatFor wrote:

It is beyond my comprehension how you are laughing at and enjoying the tone of a discussion about gun control that's spurred by the murder of 17 children.

I am going to ignore the ongoing personal attacks. I suppose they come with the territory.

However, you and I both know that I am not laughing or enjoying anything connected to the shooting or the victims, and for you to suggest such a thing is a lie which only makes you look bad.

↑ WhatFor ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:52 pm

I'm doing this for the sake of others, who may not see what you're doing, although it's overtly transparent to myself.

Fox wrote:

I was actually waiting for this, though it really needs a pursed lips emoji to go with it! I specifically said I was enjoying the sarcasm, not the dead kids.

(Employs sarcasm while lamenting the use of sarcasm. Gaslights posters who are outraged at mockery directed at those upset by massacre of children.)

Fox wrote:

It's just so typical. Can't get under someone's skin using sarcasm and personal attacks? Rearrange subjects and objects so it sounds like she's enjoying the fact that kids are dead.

(Continues with gaslighting and makes self into victim of personal attacks after employs cavalier and mocking attitude toward discussion about mass murder.)

Fox wrote:

It's a clever trick, and Chris Cuomo is a master at it,

(For umpteenth time, irrelevantly names politician for purpose of denigrating politician, in hopes this will trigger someone into responding to yet another unrelated topic and further derail the thread.)

Fox wrote:

but even Imamothers who disagree with me at times aren't going to say, "Wow! Fox is enjoying the fact that 17 people are dead."

(Appeals to popular opinion in presuming to know what other posters who disagree with her will think.)

Fox wrote:

Sorry, but people can disagree with you -- even on big, important issues -- and still be good people.

(Concludes with straw man argument.)

↑ WhatFor ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:06 pm

Fox wrote:

I am going to ignore the ongoing personal attacks. I suppose they come with the territory. However, you and I both know that I am not laughing or enjoying anything connected to the shooting or the victims,

And you are wrong yet again. The only thing I know about you is based on what you post on this message board. I have no idea who you are. I don't make assumptions about people on this message board other than that they likely wanted to post what they posted.

Your posts are reflective of the sort of person who likes to provoke people unnecessarily. There was no reason to bring up half the issues or names of people as you did on this thread other than that they were hot topics sure to derail the thread and provoke people.

Fox wrote:

and for you to suggest such a thing is a lie which only makes you look bad.

(Employs oldest gaslighting trick in the book of trying to shut down even suggestion of misbehavior by threatening accuser that the mere suggestion will impact the accuser negatively.)

↑ WhatFor ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:11 pm

Fox wrote:

Then kindly report the posts that you feel are inappropriate rather than pursuing some little vendetta. I am sure a moderator will happily tell me if I've stepped over the line.

(Because provocations are sufficiently subtle so gaslighter can claim they were unintentional acts of absentmindedness, gaslighter challenges accuser to escalate and take to higher authorities, which will afford gaslighter the chance to play self as unassuming victim again.)

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:15 pm

Fox wrote:

Fox, let's get this straight

This isn't about you. This isn't about what will tick you off or what will impress you or what will make you think I'm virtuous. Its about what we, as a country, are prepared to do to prevent such incidents from happening with such alarming regularity.

Is there any point in participating in political threads on this site? On the one hand I feel if I want to persuade people, what better place to begin than with people I already agree with and am similar to in 90% of other areas. But for some it's more about rhetorical flourishes than about people's lives.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:32 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You say you want to persuade people.

Okay, persuade me.

But so far all you've done is talk about how awful the tragedy is, imply that there's no need for anyone to have an AR 15, and demand that we do something.

Despite what you might think, I'm actually very ameneable to being persuaded on this issue. I agree that we need to take steps to prevent these kinds of incidents.

So what are your ideas? On what research did you base them? What seems to work and not work in terms of keeping guns away from people who shouldn't have them? Do you see this in terms of repealing the 2nd Amendment or some less extreme measure? Do mental health laws need to be changed in connection with potential threats? Are there severe unintended consequences to any of the changes we might make?

In the past, you've indicated that you're not especially interested in discussing specific policies and legislation. That's certainly your right, but it makes it a lot harder to consider what might be done.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:47 pm

I don't think anyone's come close to suggesting repealing the 2nd amendment. Where are you getting that from?

Yes, banning sales of the AR15 and similar weapons would be a start. Voting for elected officials not in the pocket of NRA would be a good move too.

Would that stop all manner of gun violence in this country? Likely not. There are many forms of violence and many different prongs that would have to be addressed.

Do you have a good argument why people need semi-automatic weapons? Not the slippery slope argument that it would lead to a ban on all weapons. Explain to me in what way a law abiding civilian would find a semi automatic weapon necessary or even life saving. Whenever I've seen this discussed on RW sites, the only arguments are either the slippery slope argument or, "I like it, I want it and nobody gonna tell me I can't have it."

On another thread you mentioned being fearful of giving the government too much power over weapons. What exactly do you mean by this?

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:05 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Just to add -- the AR-15 is not a hunting rifle. To quote a recent article:

Quote:

As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

Or as someone else put it many years ago, if you need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, maybe its time to admit that hunting just isn't your sport.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:20 pm

The semi-automatic issue is a good place to start. More accurately, gas-powered reloading weapons. I've also never been able to figure out why anyone would want one. I think people just like them for target shooting, truthfully. They don't just put the "mass" in mass shootings, they're more dangerous for the people using them, too.

That said, gas-powered reloading rifles account for approximately 2 percent of gun-related homicides in the U.S. It's just that the 2 percent are unusually dramatic. In fact, a lot of gun control advocacy groups have moved away from pushing for a ban on gas-powered reloading because they don't feel like it will do enough good.

A different approach is to target ammunition. Large-capacity magazines are arguably more of a problem than the gun itself. If you can fire off 100 bullets before stopping to change your magazine, you've caused a lot more death and destruction than if you'd fired off 10 bullets. Even someone who is well-trained and practices can't switch magazines instantly, so it gives victims a crucial 10-15 seconds to get away.

The issue about ammunition is important for another reason. It sounds stupid to say this, but it's not the gun doing the damage; it's the bullets. We can ban so-called "assault weapons," but virtually any gas-powered reloading weapon can be customized to accept large-capacity magazines. So banning gas-powered reloading rifles just means that people would rig their handguns to fire more bullets.

So I would probably agree with a lot of the gun control advocates: leave the guns alone and focus on the ammunition. You can limit magazines to ten bullets without running afoul of the 2nd Amendment or spending years in court arguing with people who want their semi-automatic rifles for whatever they do with them. If you're just hunting or target shooting, having to replace the magazine after 10 shots won't be a problem. It also doesn't hurt that there are a lot of people in the gun world who think this is eminently reasonable.

As you say, nothing will solve everything. There is always going to be some nut who jerry rigs his shotgun into a nuclear device. But about 50 percent of mass shootings involve large-capacity magazines, and a fairly small number of states ban them, so that might be a low-risk, high-impact place to start.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:26 pm

Fox wrote:

In the past, you've indicated that you're not especially interested in discussing specific policies and legislation. That's certainly your right, but it makes it a lot harder to consider what might be done.

I don't remember which specific conversation that was, but let me add some context.

You like to wield control over what topics may or may not be discussed on this site. My position is that anyone is free to start any discussion they like that don't violate TOS and let discussions live or die by their own merits. Let the members of the site decide what topics they're interested in discussing.

For example, discussions of policies or laws that are currently being debated by legislature are inherently more interesting TO ME than abstract hypothetical discussions of how we would run the ideal healthcate system. Thats me. It doesn't mean I have no interest in policy, just that given the demands on my time and attention at the moment I'm more interested in current concrete topics than abstract discussions. Others may have other priorities and they're free to start those discussions

You don't want people to start threads on the latest crazy thing that Trump said or did. While I understand those discussions might be uncomfortable or embarrassing for you, you have the right not to participate in them just as others have the prerogative to discuss them if they wish.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:37 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You like to wield control over what topics may or may not be discussed on this site. My position is that anyone is free to start any discussion they like that don't violate TOS and let discussions live or die by their own merits. Let the members of the site decide what topics they're interested in discussing.

I've just spent my time and effort to post a response regarding the topic you say you want to persuade people about -- preventing gun-related tragedies.

Yet instead of responding to that, you're back again to psychoanalyze me and make assumptions about the motivations behind my posts. I'm truly confused.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:43 pm

Fox wrote:

I've just spent my time and effort to post a response regarding the topic you say you want to persuade people about -- preventing gun-related tragedies.

Yet you're back again to psychoanalyze me and make assumptions about the motivations behind my posts. I'm truly confused.

Um, no. You made a statement about what I am or am not interested in discussing, based on something I may have said in passing once, don't remember exactly.

I am clarifying MY position on what topics I like to discuss. You can take the psychoanalysis elsewhere.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 4:44 pm

Fox wrote:

I think I did respond to your posts and we both agree that there is something the government can do to cut down on the scourge of mass shootings. Excellent! Now let's get to work electing representatives who will enact sensible gun laws.