WWTBAM Bored

tlynn78 wrote:My goodness panties are in a twist, aren't they. Poor boos. Try decaf.

Which part should have left me unfazed? The lockdown in my building all afternoon or the shooting of 49 people half a world away? Just so I know what it takes for you to agree that something is worth getting upset about. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Your made up 'dog whistles' don't count.

Well, judging by the manifesto, those whistles sure caught the attention of one dog. Donald Trump speaks the language that the bigots and white nationalists understand. Yet even when the proof is staring you in the face, you choose to believe the rationalizations and excuses.

A madman kills 49 worshipers in a place of worship 8,000 miles away.
One man of 7.7 billion people on the planet.

SSS, Bob#s, and other TDS sufferers blame Trump.

NYU students blame Chelsea Clinton

I will blame the shooter.

Trump does not spew hate. Trump does not condone hate. The only hate I see are these white supremacists (and they are neither Trump or his base), "Black Panther" types (who are neither Barack Obama or his base) and folks on the left attacking people for wearing a hat or shirt, or for not agreeing with their beliefs. I do see people, like Bob#s, making stuff up about what they think (actually wish) Trump and his supporters believe. That is because, deep down, they do not really believe in freedom of expression or thought and they wish to squash their opponents desire, or even ability, to express those beliefs, either by bullying, persecution, or legislation.

BackInTex wrote:A madman kills 49 worshipers in a place of worship 8,000 miles away.
One man of 7.7 billion people on the planet.

SSS, Bob#s, and other TDS sufferers blame Trump.

NYU students blame Chelsea Clinton

I will blame the shooter.

Trump does not spew hate. Trump does not condone hate. The only hate I see are these white supremacists (and they are neither Trump or his base), "Black Panther" types (who are neither Barack Obama or his base) and folks on the left attacking people for wearing a hat or shirt, or for not agreeing with their beliefs. I do see people, like Bob#s, making stuff up about what they think (actually wish) Trump and his supporters believe. That is because, deep down, they do not really believe in freedom of expression or thought and they wish to squash their opponents desire, or even ability, to express those beliefs, either by bullying, persecution, or legislation.

Let's be precise. I don't blame Donny for pulling the trigger. I blame him for creating an atmosphere where incidents like this were bound to become a lot more likely.

And it's Donny who has also been using his bully pulpit, from his days as a candidate until the day before yesterday, to encourage physical violence against his political opponents. And you don't seem to give a damn.

Fine. We took out a whole bunch of Congressional enablers throughout the country in November 2018 (including the one in your very own Congessional District). We'll just do what we did here in California, continuing to remove them from power until there aren't enough of them left to harm anyone. And if Republican voters ever do start insisting on representation who will actually stand up against the bullshit Donny spews, even at the risk of their jobs, then maybe they'll deserve a seat at the table again. Until then, it's time to bulldoze them. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote: I don't blame Donny for pulling the trigger. I blame him for creating an atmosphere where incidents like this were bound to become a lot more likely.

And it's Donny who has also been using his bully pulpit, from his days as a candidate until the day before yesterday, to encourage physical violence against his political opponents. And you don't seem to give a damn.

You keep saying that like its true. You've got one quote from a rally about a protester in that rally.

What did Trump say the day before yesterday that "encouraged physical violence" against folks in general? I've been on vacation, so maybe I missed it.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob78164 wrote: I don't blame Donny for pulling the trigger. I blame him for creating an atmosphere where incidents like this were bound to become a lot more likely.

And it's Donny who has also been using his bully pulpit, from his days as a candidate until the day before yesterday, to encourage physical violence against his political opponents. And you don't seem to give a damn.

You keep saying that like its true. You've got one quote from a rally about a protester in that rally.

What did Trump say the day before yesterday that "encouraged physical violence" against folks in general? I've been on vacation, so maybe I missed it.

President Trump wrote:So here’s the thing—it’s so terrible what’s happening. You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay?

I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.

Later the White House claimed Trump meant his supporters would defend him against left-wing violence, not become violent themselves. This quote is from an interview on Breitbart, white supremacists' favorite network. IMHO a president shouldn't be seen there at all.

jarnon wrote:
Later the White House claimed Trump meant his supporters would defend him against left-wing violence, not become violent themselves. This quote is from an interview on Breitbart, white supremacists' favorite network. IMHO a president shouldn't be seen there at all.

It's amazing how guys like the New Zealand shooter have no problem figuring out what Trump means, while Flock, BiT, and the talking heads at Toxic News seem totally shocked that anyone could find Trump's words objectionable.

Beebs52 wrote:Will you be lobbying for New Zealand gun control or what?

It looks like I won't have to. The Attorney General of New Zealand just announced that the country will ban semi-automatic rifles. If only Congress could respond to a national emergency and a national tragedy that quickly. (How long did it take us to respond to Pearl Harbor?) --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Will you be lobbying for New Zealand gun control or what?

It looks like I won't have to. The Attorney General of New Zealand just announced that the country will ban semi-automatic rifles. If only Congress could respond to a national emergency and a national tragedy that quickly. (How long did it take us to respond to Pearl Harbor?) --Bob

That’s great! Because a pshyopath intent on killing dozens of people will now decide “Oh, I.K. I’ll behave now. “

You guys are sure in an outrage now that you've finally found an atrocity that fits your narrative. Damn, you have plenty of others to choose from, but you seem to be very selective in your outrage.

Do you have any outrage for this?
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

How about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... anizations

I think that's enough...

Who should we blame for creating the atmosphere for these atrocities?

Just for inquiring minds: Why do we have 24 hour worldwide coverage of this one atrocity, but almost nothing on the ones I had to go looking for. Are they not equally evil?

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Do you have any outrage for this?
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

Here's what Media Bias Fact Check has to say about "The Religion of Peace."

In reality, this is a website that promotes anti-Muslim propaganda through only posting negative information about Islam, such as crimes that may not be related to ones religion such as this where they link to a Mixed factual source. In general, this source links to other media that has a right wing bias or is otherwise questionable by our methodology. The Religion of Peace also sources Robert Spencer in articles, who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list. Overall, we rate The Religion of Peace as Questionable for having an extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy/propaganda and hate group tendencies. (D. Van Zandt 9/15/2017)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-religion-of-peace/

Many of the incidents they list are in countries in which there is an active civil war going on involving one group of Muslims against another. Most of the wars in Europe over the past 2000 years have pitted one group of Christians against another, and I doubt anyone would call them acts of Christian terrorism.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Do you have any outrage for this?
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/atta ... ?Yr=Last30

Here's what Media Bias Fact Check has to say about "The Religion of Peace."

In reality, this is a website that promotes anti-Muslim propaganda through only posting negative information about Islam, such as crimes that may not be related to ones religion such as this where they link to a Mixed factual source. In general, this source links to other media that has a right wing bias or is otherwise questionable by our methodology. The Religion of Peace also sources Robert Spencer in articles, who is on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list. Overall, we rate The Religion of Peace as Questionable for having an extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy/propaganda and hate group tendencies. (D. Van Zandt 9/15/2017)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-religion-of-peace/

Many of the incidents they list are in countries in which there is an active civil war going on involving one group of Muslims against another. Most of the wars in Europe over the past 2000 years have pitted one group of Christians against another, and I doubt anyone would call them acts of Christian terrorism.

Media Bias Fact Check?
SPLC Hate List?

BAT-PHONE!

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Media Bias Fact Check?
SPLC Hate List?

BAT-PHONE!

Ignorance is bliss, so you must be one very happy person Flock.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Media Bias Fact Check?
SPLC Hate List?

BAT-PHONE!

Ignorance is bliss, so you must be one very happy person Flock.

Ben Carson was once on the SPLC hate list. You can think of me as ignorant if you want, if it makes you feel better, but it won't win any arguments for you.

New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles

New Zealand is banning all assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and military-style semi-automatic rifles in response to the nation's deadliest massacre in history, the country's prime minister announced Thursday.

Jacinda Ardern said the ban goes into effect immediately and would be followed by legislation next month. New Zealand's citizens should make arrangements to turn in weapons banned under the new laws, Ardern told the nation in a live television announcement.

"On March 15, the nation witnessed a terrorist attack that demonstrated the weakness of New Zealand's gun laws," Ardern said. "The guns used in this attack had the power to shoot continuously. The times for the easy availability of these weapons must end. And today, they will."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

Vandal wrote:New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles

New Zealand is banning all assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and military-style semi-automatic rifles in response to the nation's deadliest massacre in history, the country's prime minister announced Thursday.

Jacinda Ardern said the ban goes into effect immediately and would be followed by legislation next month. New Zealand's citizens should make arrangements to turn in weapons banned under the new laws, Ardern told the nation in a live television announcement.

"On March 15, the nation witnessed a terrorist attack that demonstrated the weakness of New Zealand's gun laws," Ardern said. "The guns used in this attack had the power to shoot continuously. The times for the easy availability of these weapons must end. And today, they will."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

I'm sure there is a long line of White Nationalists forming to turn their guns in now, to cooperate with the law.

Why don't they first ban murder, mass murder, shooting people with the intent to murder, and terrorism. Seems that would be the first place to start.

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles

New Zealand is banning all assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and military-style semi-automatic rifles in response to the nation's deadliest massacre in history, the country's prime minister announced Thursday.

Jacinda Ardern said the ban goes into effect immediately and would be followed by legislation next month. New Zealand's citizens should make arrangements to turn in weapons banned under the new laws, Ardern told the nation in a live television announcement.

"On March 15, the nation witnessed a terrorist attack that demonstrated the weakness of New Zealand's gun laws," Ardern said. "The guns used in this attack had the power to shoot continuously. The times for the easy availability of these weapons must end. And today, they will."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

I'm sure there is a long line of White Nationalists forming to turn their guns in now, to cooperate with the law.

Why don't they first ban murder, mass murder, shooting people with the intent to murder, and terrorism. Seems that would be the first place to start.

Of course, by your logic, we shouldn't have laws against murder, because murderers don't stop killing to cooperate with the law.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

I'm sure there is a long line of White Nationalists forming to turn their guns in now, to cooperate with the law.

Why don't they first ban murder, mass murder, shooting people with the intent to murder, and terrorism. Seems that would be the first place to start.

Of course, by your logic, we shouldn't have laws against murder, because murderers don't stop killing to cooperate with the law.

You should stop trying to use the word logic, or even its concept, in your responses. It doesn't work.

Let me see if I can help.


1. Laws banning murder are good. Murder is a bad thing and those that commit it should be punished.

2. Laws banning guns are bad. Owning a gun is not a bad thing.

3. Using guns for bad purposes is bad and should be banned. See #1.

Banning guns denies law abiding people of something. It does little to non-law abiding people. You not wanting to own a gun and not appreciating the utility of ownership is no reason to ban ownership.

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles

New Zealand is banning all assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and military-style semi-automatic rifles in response to the nation's deadliest massacre in history, the country's prime minister announced Thursday.

Jacinda Ardern said the ban goes into effect immediately and would be followed by legislation next month. New Zealand's citizens should make arrangements to turn in weapons banned under the new laws, Ardern told the nation in a live television announcement.

"On March 15, the nation witnessed a terrorist attack that demonstrated the weakness of New Zealand's gun laws," Ardern said. "The guns used in this attack had the power to shoot continuously. The times for the easy availability of these weapons must end. And today, they will."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

I'm sure there is a long line of White Nationalists forming to turn their guns in now, to cooperate with the law.

Why don't they first ban murder, mass murder, shooting people with the intent to murder, and terrorism. Seems that would be the first place to start.

If only there were a foreign example to test whether banning these weapons appreciably reduced mass murders and deaths by firearms. Then we'd be able to argue from actual evidence instead of ideology. --Bob

BackInTex wrote: Banning guns denies law abiding people of something. It does little to non-law abiding people.

You've combined "owning guns" with "owning assault weapons." Those aren't the same thing. Further, banning assault weapons will have an effect eventually on the number of those in circulation. Guns break; guns wear out; guns are seized by law enforcement. The supply will dwindle, and although there will undoubtedly continue to be black market arms dealers, not every would-be mass shooter has reliable access to these sources.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:New Zealand announces immediate ban of assault rifles



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 230544002/

I'm sure there is a long line of White Nationalists forming to turn their guns in now, to cooperate with the law.

Why don't they first ban murder, mass murder, shooting people with the intent to murder, and terrorism. Seems that would be the first place to start.

If only there were a foreign example to test whether banning these weapons appreciably reduced mass murders and deaths by firearms. Then we'd be able to argue from actual evidence instead of ideology. --Bob

Here is a reasonable article about mass shootings
The article's definition of mass shooting:
-4 or more people killed
-Excludes shootings tied to gang disputes or robberies that went awry
-Excludes domestic shootings that took place exclusively in private homes.


How many mass shooting have there been...since 1966? 162

How many people have been killed in mass shootings....since 1966? 1,153

How many shooters.....since 1966? 166

How many guns involved.....since 1966? 309

How many were illegally obtained? At least 59. (171 obtained legally, unknown how 79 were acquired)


Even I was surprised by the stats, how few true mass shootings and deaths there were. 1,153 deaths in 53 years, less than 22 a year.

I'd say your priorities are in the wrong place. Secure the borders and we can save a lot more people than that.

BackInTex wrote:Here is a reasonable article about mass shootings
The article's definition of mass shooting:
-4 or more people killed
-Excludes shootings tied to gang disputes or robberies that went awry
-Excludes domestic shootings that took place exclusively in private homes.

I assume these people are excluded from mass shooting statistics because the victims aren't quite as dead as the victims of other mass shootings? --Bob

BackInTex wrote:Secure the borders and we can save a lot more people than that.

This is more of the same old bullshit that fails to acknowledge the evidence that immigrants (both authorized and unauthorized) are less likely than authorized residents to commit crimes, including violent crimes. That's particularly true if you disregard status offenses arising from their entry into the country -- recall that unauthorized presence in the United States is a civil violation, not a crime.

The average mass shooter is a homegrown white nationalist. And I can't think of a single mass shooting -- not one -- that has been carried out by an unauthorized immigrant. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Secure the borders and we can save a lot more people than that.

This is more of the same old bullshit that fails to acknowledge the evidence that immigrants (both authorized and unauthorized) are less likely than authorized residents to commit crimes, including violent crimes. That's particularly true if you disregard status offenses arising from their entry into the country -- recall that unauthorized presence in the United States is a civil violation, not a crime.

The average mass shooter is a homegrown white nationalist.

Talk about your bullshit.