Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

 

context KarmaPolice - and yes, the kid looks like a cracked basket case to me. You might not think so, that's fine ... his actions prove it. Whispering "dont' come to school tomorrow" and bullying people and the school ignoring it .... I'm curious how the parents justified it all. Blind? Head in the sand and ignored? Nobody knows yes and we might never know public wise

as for profiling - absolutely use "looks" as one of the many things that can be used as identification markers. Not the only one like -fish tries to say, but one of many many

 

 

 

 

Getting to the point that I can't take you seriously anymore.  I don't care if it's one of many or the only marker you use, there is 0 info you can gain by looking at somebody as to whether they have a mental illness or will commit crimes like these.

  Ok, I guess one - do they have a penis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Getting to the point that I can't take you seriously anymore.  I don't care if it's one of many or the only marker you use, there is 0 info you can gain by looking at somebody as to whether they have a mental illness or will commit crimes like these.

  Ok, I guess one - do they have a penis?

Should we take this seriously? 

If so, then it narrows our conversation to mass shooters only (male perpetrators)  And by narrowing that conversation, as it relates to gun regulation, there is A - very little that you can do to be proactive other than banning all firearms and B - you said you don't want to ban all firearms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Getting to the point that I can't take you seriously anymore.  

Just now? 

You’re like the White Walkers dude. It took you 7 seasons to get to the Wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

When have I ever said that?  That is what I am talking about with the lack of hypocrisy.   Again, I didn't read your posts as trying to be funny or poke as SC, so that's not hypocritical either.  

The problem with these threads is they really blur the lines of who said what and lumping everybody as anti-gun or gun nuts with no nuance to the discussion.   I get it - it's not like we all have spreadsheets to keep track of who said what in these threads.  

 

1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Fair - I need to stop saying "nobody wants this".  I seem to focus a bit on the main 6-8 posters in this thread currently and what I take their beliefs too, so most of my statements are about those people.  I have no doubt there are people in every gradient of this discussion as far as what they want to do for this issue.  

The hypocrisy comes when you only disagree with those that are completely apposed to your point of view. You may lean a little to the left. I lean 3/4 to the right. When someone that leans 3/4 to the left states their opinion, you don't dispute their point of view. By doing so, it appears as though you condone it. 

The analogy I would use is if we are discussing the best color. I like Red and you are trying to convince me that Blue is better because you think it's the best color. A third person comes along and states that Green is the best. I state my reasons why Red is better than Green to them, but you ignore their statement because Blue is contributing factor in the color Green. It's not Blue, but you don't dispute their opinion. You only ever dispute mine. 

This is also the reason why people get lumped together. Failure to speak up when something is beyond what you believe makes us think you are okay with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Getting to the point that I can't take you seriously anymore.  I don't care if it's one of many or the only marker you use, there is 0 info you can gain by looking at somebody as to whether they have a mental illness or will commit crimes like these.

  Ok, I guess one - do they have a penis?

you don't know much about profiling - that's ok

it is one thing of many - if you can't agree on that so be it. But it is

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 3:40 PM, KCitons said:
On 5/14/2019 at 3:30 PM, Politician Spock said:

You are ignoring a lot to come to that conclusion. 

You do this a lot. You make a comment telling me I'm wrong. But, offer nothing more. I get the feeling you think I'm supposed to agree with you because "you said so". It doesn't work that way. 

I gave you reasons for my opinion. Terrorist could no longer get into the cockpit, and if they did, they run the risk of being shot by a pilot. Even they aren't dumb enough to bring a box cutter to a gun fight. Do you think if the cockpits weren't locked and there isn't a possibility of pilots being armed, that we would have seen another 9/11? Because everyone's took off their shoes and jackets before boarding?

Do you honestly believe if we got rid of TSA boarding procedures, flying would be just as safe because some pilots carry?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

you don't know much about profiling - that's ok

it is one thing of many - if you can't agree on that so be it. But it is

 

 

 

For you or for something that is actually statistically useful?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Do you honestly believe if we got rid of TSA boarding procedures, flying would be just as safe because some pilots carry?

 

more guns make everything safer.   they're magic.   they can prevent bombs on planes, so who needs TSA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, the rover said:

more guns make everything safer.   they're magic.   they can prevent bombs on planes, so who needs TSA?

I need to learn more about the magic of guns. Clearly I'm missing out on something magical here. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

For you or for something that is actually statistically useful?  

do some research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

I need to learn more about the magic of guns. Clearly I'm missing out on something magical here. 

Go buy 4 or 5.  They're cheap and easy to get.   Once you buy one, you will not only be safe from crime, but able to tell just by looking at people whether they're mentally ill or dangerous.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

I need to learn more about the magic of guns. Clearly I'm missing out on something magical here. 

you are not

 

its the silly rover/fish comments that distract from a thread that has some value to it. Without serious dialogue, they can literally troll a thread to death. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, the rover said:

Go buy 4 or 5.  They're cheap and easy to get.   Once you buy one, you will not only be safe from crime, but able to tell just by looking at people whether they're mentally ill or dangerous.   

and again ............ nobody has ever said the above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the rover said:

Go buy 4 or 5.  They're cheap and easy to get.   Once you buy one, you will not only be safe from crime, but able to tell just by looking at people whether they're mentally ill or dangerous.   

Magic and French benefits too? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

Magic and French benefits too? 

You should be warned that you may experience some degree of lead poisoning, which may make you dumber and slightly insane.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

and again ............ nobody has ever said the above

you.  you did.  repeatedly.  you claim that you can tell if someone is mentally ill by looking at them.   why do you need to lie about everything?  your posts are still there to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

you are not

 

its the silly rover/fish comments that distract from a thread that has some value to it. Without serious dialogue, they can literally troll a thread to death. 

there is no value in anything you post.   it might as well be fun proving you wrong over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are verifiable facts, with source material:

1) States with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/07/1686081/study-states-with-most-gun-laws-have-fewest-gun-deaths/

 

2) States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

 

3) More than half of mass shooters in the United States used what is conventionally considered an assault weapon and high-capacity magazines.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein

 

4) 25 of the 62 mass shootings in the United States since 1983 have happened since the Assault Weapons Ban was overturned in 2006.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

 

5) More than three quarters of the guns used in the above-mentioned shootings were obtained legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

 

6) Mass Shootings are becoming more frequent

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/02/3113171/mass-shootings-speeding/

 

7) Canada (which has less gun violence and more guns) has tighter gun control laws than The United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/world/americas/07canada.html

 

😎 Australia, which also has tighter gun control laws than The Unites States, saw a significant reduction in gun-related killing sprees, homicides, and suicides upon enacting such legislation

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

 

9) Israel and Switzerland are NOT gun-toting utopias

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

 

10) The United States’ Second Amendment is NOT threatened by the United Nations Arms Treaty

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2012/07/12/nra-conducts-a-false-campaign-against-the-un-arms-trade-treaty

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

11) Hitler and Stalin did NOT tighten gun control prior to their fascist regimes

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/harcourt/harcourt_fordham.pdf

 

12) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms cannot inspect gun dealers more than once a year, request or require that they submit their inventory, or keep them from destroying records of background checks within 24 hours. Likewise, the ATF has no permanent director.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-nra-atf-gun-control-obama-2013-1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012500867.html

 

A logical conclusion from this is that the ATF has been rendered incapable of preventing guns from being sold on the Black Market. 

 

13) The National Rifle Association protects wife beaters’ gun rights.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html

 

14) The National Rifle Association supported gun control when the Black Panthers wanted to arm themselves.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

15) Most people support gun control and oppose absolute banning of gun possession.

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

 

16) 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks before all gun buys.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/

 

17) Women are much more likely to be murdered if they own a gun, and there’s no clear evidence to suggest that gun ownership reduces a woman’s chances of being killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

 

18) Countries that have more guns have more violent deaths; both in terms of homicide and suicide

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html

 

19) Having less access to guns reduces suicide:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

 

20) Background checks and waiting periods reduce gun suicides in those 55 years of age and older.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918704

 

21) Gun suicides now outnumber gun homicides, and regulations (which some states already require) reduce gun suicide rates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/gun-waiting-periods_n_3437650.html

 

22) Having a gun in one’s house is more of a health risk than a health benefit.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm

 

23) The National Rifle Association specifically lobbied to curtail research into the health risks of gun possession.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/nra-gun-safety_n_2449591.html

 

24) America is not getting “more violent”

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

 

25) Gun control IS constitutional

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html

 

26) The Founding Fathers DID support gun control; “infringement” did not mean “unlimited freedom of gun ownership".

http://blog.timesunion.com/guns/gun-control-founding-father-style/1088/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation/index.html

 

27) Criminals WILL NOT easily find another way to get guns if we have gun control.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

 

28) Chicago, despite having strict gun control laws, has a gun violence problem because guns come into the city from surrounding cities and states that have comparatively lax gun laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all

 

29) Criminals may "find another way" to murder people, but the fact gun murders happen more than five times as often as knife murders suggests that taking guns away from criminals would make murder much more difficult:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

 

30) The majority of people who lie on background check forms are never prosecuted

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/politics/us-may-focus-more-on-gun-background-checks.html

 

31) Most of the guns coming across the border from Mexico originate in The United States

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/politics/35454066_1_operation-fast-and-furious-assault-weapons-gun-traffic

 

32) No armed revolution has ever succeeded without assistance from either their own armed forces or other another country's government.

 

33) Armed civilians are not necessary for a successful revolution against an authoritarian states, as the Baltic States, Bolivia, Chile, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Egypt, Georgia, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Madagascar, The Philippines, Serbia, South Africa, Sudan, The Ukraine, and Tunisia have successfully waged non-violent revolutions.

http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Revolutions-Resistance-Century-Politics/dp/0199778213

 

34) There is sufficient reason to believe that accidental shootings involving children occur roughly twice as often as records indicate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130929

 

35) Because of maneuvering in Congress by the gun lobby and its allies, firearms have been exempted from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission since its inception.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html

 

36) Fewer than 20 states have enacted laws to hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html

 

37) There is insufficient evidence to suggest that mental illness is a nearly as significant a factor in gun violence as the gun lobby would have people believe.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/14/massacres-and-madness.html

 

38) The gun industry profits from people's paranoia

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/17/3175361/gun-industry-looking-forward-2016-election-paranoia-bigger-profit/

 

39) Otherwise unpremeditated murders, where people kill out of momentary rage, are the single most common type of gun homicide in America.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/16/movie-theatre-shooting-man-texting-florida

 

40) In many of the states that have lax gun laws, gun-related deaths outnumber traffic-related deaths.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths

 

41) The NRA deliberately provokes paranoid fear of gun confiscation to oppose universal background checks.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/nras_rhetoric_on_gun_confiscation_appears_to_be_working/

 

42) Thanks to the NRA's lobbying, it's actually illegal to have any national gun registry (which would help law enforcement trace the flow of illegal guns)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/04/04/half_of_americans_fear_that_background_checks_would_lead_to_a_gun_registry.html

 

43) In fact, the NRA maintains its own, secretive national gun registry (it refuses to disclose how many names or what  information is in it, or what it uses this information for)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess/how-the-nra-built-a-massive-secret-database-of-gun-owners

 

44) The NRA has a vested financial interest in telling its members (who donate nearly $30,000,000 a year to it) what they want to hear and believe.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5450

 

45) Gun Magazines deliberately cater to gun owners' paranoia and gun manufacturers' bottom lines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

Do you honestly believe if we got rid of TSA boarding procedures, flying would be just as safe because some pilots carry?

 

Nice job twisting my comment. You scold me when I do this. 

We know the rules went into effect after the 9/11 attacks. We know that those attacks happened because the terrorists were able to take control of the cockpit. We now lock the cockpits and some pilots are carrying guns in the cockpit. We identified the source of the incident and corrected it. No terrorist has gained access to the cockpit since. 

Are there other things that could happen on a plane that require TSA? Sure. But they weren't as much of an issue before 9/11. Why did the hijackers use box cutters if they could have gone through security with a gun. Oh wait, they couldn't we screened for that already. 

Even the case of the shoe bomber. Some here want to point out the difficulty in 3d printing a gun. But, we assume that Joe six pack can make a shoe bomb in his basement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, the rover said:

It's going to take a while for SC to come up with 45 lies.

For the sake of brevity, where do you stand on gun control? Ban all? Ban assault rifles? Limit magazine capacity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One in four police officers who is killed in the line of duty by gunfire is killed by an assault weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Nice job twisting my comment. You scold me when I do this. 

We know the rules went into effect after the 9/11 attacks. We know that those attacks happened because the terrorists were able to take control of the cockpit. We now lock the cockpits and some pilots are carrying guns in the cockpit. We identified the source of the incident and corrected it. No terrorist has gained access to the cockpit since. 

Are there other things that could happen on a plane that require TSA? Sure. But they weren't as much of an issue before 9/11. Why did the hijackers use box cutters if they could have gone through security with a gun. Oh wait, they couldn't we screened for that already. 

Even the case of the shoe bomber. Some here want to point out the difficulty in 3d printing a gun. But, we assume that Joe six pack can make a shoe bomb in his basement. 

This is the post you responded to:

On 5/14/2019 at 1:50 PM, Politician Spock said:

I think you focus way too much on how this impacts people that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that's nothing more than a distraction. As I said before in this thread, I hate airport security. It's very inconvenient, but I don't for a moment think that that regulation shouldn't have been done given the HUGE problem that needed a solution. 

Pretty much every law ever written results in inconvenience to law abiding citizens. 

You went into the cockpit rhetoric. Why I don't know (probably deflecting). 

My post was about having to go through airport security as a passenger. Don't accuse me of twisting your words when you go off on a tangent and I can't understand how it related to what I said.

And I take it you still don't agree that we as a society benefit when even law abiding citizens are inconvenienced by regulation, and it's not a punishment upon them. Going off on tangents to avoid having to admit the obvious is typically called deflecting, which is one of many ways to troll. 

 

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the rover said:

you.  you did.  repeatedly.  you claim that you can tell if someone is mentally ill by looking at them.   why do you need to lie about everything?  your posts are still there to read.

nope - context, look up what that mean, it'll help you

well ...no, it won't, but that's all I can say 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, -fish- said:

One in four police officers who is killed in the line of duty by gunfire is killed by an assault weapon.

assault is an action - every officer killed is assaulted 

link please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

This post is ironic. 

actually it isn't

just about everything I have links and stats and facts to back up .......... its one thing I'm actually pretty good at doing here unlike other posters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

actually it isn't

just about everything I have links and stats and facts to back up .......... its one thing I'm actually pretty good at doing here unlike other posters

There is a HUGE difference between research and confirmation bias reading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

actually it isn't

just about everything I have links and stats and facts to back up .......... its one thing I'm actually pretty good at doing here unlike other posters

You lie in nearly every post and the sources you rely on the most—Kleck and Lott, are discredited hacks.  Parroting talking points is not research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 12:50 PM, Politician Spock said:

I think you focus way too much on how this impacts people that aren't part of the problem. In my opinion that's nothing more than a distraction. As I said before in this thread, I hate airport security. It's very inconvenient, but I don't for a moment think that that regulation shouldn't have been done given the HUGE problem that needed a solution. 

Pretty much every law ever written results in inconvenience to law abiding citizens. 

And this was the post that I was responding to. The HUGE problem that needed a solution is terrorists taking over control of the cockpit. The solution to that problem was to lock the cockpit doors and arm the pilots. 

We went off on this tangent because you brought it up. Now you accuse me of twisting your words. Ridonkulous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

There is a HUGE difference between research and confirmation bias reading. 

oh so now you crab away and just refuse to see any value in any of the sources I use - which is a WIDE variety

how convenient for you

45 minutes ago, -fish- said:

You lie in nearly every post and the sources you rely on the most—Kleck and Lott, are discredited hacks.  Parroting talking points is not research.

what was that link again ?

yeah ... that's what I thought - Politician Spock- you need to grill fish for not providing links - right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

actually it isn't

just about everything I have links and stats and facts to back up .......... its one thing I'm actually pretty good at doing here unlike other posters

Research like talking about Australia's gun ban/mass shootings with links to mass killings? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Research like talking about Australia's gun ban/mass shootings with links to mass killings? 

Like claiming there are 3 million incidents of self defense with guns while citing a study the author admitted was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

And this was the post that I was responding to. The HUGE problem that needed a solution is terrorists taking over control of the cockpit. The solution to that problem was to lock the cockpit doors and arm the pilots. 

We went off on this tangent because you brought it up. Now you accuse me of twisting your words. Ridonkulous. 

And I said you are ignoring a lot to make that conclusion. The solution to that problem was everything that was done, including stricter TSA boarding procedures. If that wasn't the solution, people would not accept the stricter TSA boarding procedures as being necessary, much like gun advocates don't accept increased gun regulation as being necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

oh so now you crab away and just refuse to see any value in any of the sources I use - which is a WIDE variety

how convenient for you

The value of any source is intrinsic.

My opinion of it doesn't matter. 

But anyone can search and find links and stats and facts that confirm their bias. That's not research in the academic sense at all. At best, it's confirmation bias research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what was that link again ?

yeah ... that's what I thought - Politician Spock- you need to grill fish for not providing links - right ?

Fish is one of the best at providing peer reviewed studies on the board. Don't even try to drag him down to your level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

And I said you are ignoring a lot to make that conclusion. The solution to that problem was everything that was done, including stricter TSA boarding procedures. If that wasn't the solution, people would not accept the stricter TSA boarding procedures as being necessary, much like gun advocates don't accept increased gun regulation as being necessary.

Let's make this simple. Which would have prevented 9/11 attacks, the things that you and I go through at the airport or the locking of the cockpit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Let's make this simple. Which would have prevented 9/11 attacks, the things that you and I go through at the airport or the locking of the cockpit?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Politician Spock said:

Yes.

TSA misses 70% of fake weapons.

What was it that the 9/11 terrorists used? Box cutters. The TSA misses a lot of stuff. And most of the stuff they find are things that someone is not trying to hide, they just forgot it was in the bag. If someone wanted to get a box cutter on a plane, I suspect they could do so without much effort. The reason they don't is because the cockpits are locked. 

Again, how many cockpit breaches have we had since 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

TSA misses 70% of fake weapons.

What was it that the 9/11 terrorists used? Box cutters. The TSA misses a lot of stuff. And most of the stuff they find are things that someone is not trying to hide, they just forgot it was in the bag. If someone wanted to get a box cutter on a plane, I suspect they could do so without much effort. The reason they don't is because the cockpits are locked. 

Again, how many cockpit breaches have we had since 9/11?

They both help prevent what happened. 

A combination of solutions is almost always better than just choosing to do one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

assault is an action - every officer killed is assaulted 

link please

Was this post supposed to make sense?  Tell you what...how about you verify it.  It will be good for you to look at something other than the NRA’s website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

They both help prevent what happened. 

A combination of solutions is almost always better than just choosing to do one. 

How so?

I've given you examples and stats to show you're wrong. But you choose to ignore those facts. 

Which would you rather have happen? A terrorist gets a knife past a security checkpoint but cannot gain access to the cockpit? Or a terrorist doesn't get a knife past the checkpoint, but gains access to the cockpit? 

I'll give you a hint. One leads to planes being flown into buildings, the other doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

Just now? 

You’re like the White Walkers dude. It took you 7 seasons to get to the Wall. 

It took me awhile to poke around in the PSF, so I am not quite as experienced with the people in here that many are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, KCitons said:

 

The hypocrisy comes when you only disagree with those that are completely apposed to your point of view. You may lean a little to the left. I lean 3/4 to the right. When someone that leans 3/4 to the left states their opinion, you don't dispute their point of view. By doing so, it appears as though you condone it. 

The analogy I would use is if we are discussing the best color. I like Red and you are trying to convince me that Blue is better because you think it's the best color. A third person comes along and states that Green is the best. I state my reasons why Red is better than Green to them, but you ignore their statement because Blue is contributing factor in the color Green. It's not Blue, but you don't dispute their opinion. You only ever dispute mine. 

This is also the reason why people get lumped together. Failure to speak up when something is beyond what you believe makes us think you are okay with it. 

Me being left leaning overall has nothing to do with how I would view a specific topic. 

I tend to not engage with people that poke their head in every once in awhile, so it's mostly the 1/2 dozen or so people that are in here on a consistent basis.  Seems like I disagree with you and SC mostly and pretty much agree with the rest on most things.  Hell, up until about 1 month ago I agreed with a lot of what you were saying too.   Not sure how it's hypocritical if I don't call out people I agree with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, KCitons said:

How so?

I've given you examples and stats to show you're wrong. But you choose to ignore those facts. 

Which would you rather have happen? A terrorist gets a knife past a security checkpoint but cannot gain access to the cockpit? Or a terrorist doesn't get a knife past the checkpoint, but gains access to the cockpit? 

I'll give you a hint. One leads to planes being flown into buildings, the other doesn't. 

In response to you going off on the cockpit tangent (which you are still doing) I asked you this:

5 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

Do you honestly believe if we got rid of TSA boarding procedures, flying would be just as safe because some pilots carry?

and then you respond that I am twisting your argument... yet you go on making that exact argument. :doh:

Unless you believe that getting rid of TSA boarding procedures would result in flying being just as safe, then you believe that the inconvenience of our existing TSA boarding procedures is providing society increased safety. Which is the entire point that I made by saying I hate TSA boarding procedures because they are so ### #### inconvenient, but never felt I, as a law abiding citizen, am being punished by them, because I know they result in benefit to society. 

If you go off on one more tangent to deflect from this point that you obviously cannot argue against, then I will chalk that up as winning this argument. I'm done chasing you down another rabbit hole so you can deflect again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Politician Spock said:

In response to you going off on the cockpit tangent (which you are still doing) I asked you this:

and then you respond that I am twisting your argument... yet you go on making that exact argument. :doh:

Unless you believe that getting rid of TSA boarding procedures would result in flying being just as safe, then you believe that the inconvenience of our existing TSA boarding procedures is providing society increased safety. Which is the entire point that I made by saying I hate TSA boarding procedures because they are so ### #### inconvenient, but never felt I, as a law abiding citizen, am being punished by them, because I know they result in benefit to society. 

If you go off on one more tangent to deflect from this point that you obviously cannot argue against, then I will chalk that up as winning this argument. I'm done chasing you down another rabbit hole so you can deflect again. 

I would say many of the TSA boarding procedures are impression of controls. The article that I sited proves that. Locked cockpit doors are 100% effective in preventing a cockpit breach. Security checkpoints are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I would say many of the TSA boarding procedures are impression of controls. The article that I sited proves that. Locked cockpit doors are 100% effective in preventing a cockpit breach. Security checkpoints are not. 

When you experience the inconvenience of going through TSA boarding security, are you being punished?

I don't give a #### about any specific details about cockpits, bombs, #######s who put their seats back, emotional support peacocks, the lack of peanuts because people with peanut allergies ruined everyone's fun, or any other pain in the ### situation that could occur on a plane. I want to know one thing, and one thing only. Is KCitons being punished by airline safety regulations? YES or NO?

Edited by Politician Spock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t want to get in the middle of anything here but, as someone who travels 100k + a year on planes, I’d be willing to sacrifice a few people if it meant moving people through tsa a bit quicker.  Sacrifices.  Not mine, theirs. 

Carry on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.