12 shot dead at movie theater

[Smooth Criminal]

How about this for one classy man!
https://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=401566

 

[DreaAlGhul]

Where do these dip____s crawl out of?

https://m.complex.com/city-guide/2012/07/man-in-maine-arrested-after-watching-the-dark-knight-rises

God dammit, people are ____ing morons.

 

[carbo-fation]

Not sure if this was posted already.

https://www.abc4.com/content/about_...-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

 

[csi]

Not really accurate. They don`t have an army, they have a militia and they have to keep their guns at home in case they have to mobilize quickly.

so its not accurate that just about every man there has a gun because they are a militia and have to have guns?

They are not facts. They issue guns to anyone in the militia, which is most men, true, but very few women. They have a very responsible gun culture, why can't we be honest about it?

So its not a fact that every man as a gun, because they issue guns to everyone in the militia, which is most men?

With the added bit of information about the militia, IMO it reduces the point that the guns are what prevent the crime (as people in this thread sorta infer).

I wonder how much has to do with the country taking the time to empower their citizens, train them, and basically show them they're important to the societal structure and not out there as loners with no place in the society.

so you think that because the government puts a gun in everyone's hand and trains them to use it, no one in their country feels alone and not part of a societal structure? I like how its ok for you to blow off the facts that everyone has a gun and they have incredibly few incidences of gun violence, but its ok to speculate alternative reasons?

 

[csi]

Interesting letter posted on Twitter.

https://www.twitlonger.com/show/fig2h2

 

[wofford29]

That's a great letter csi.

 

[ProgMatinee]

s
so you think that because the government puts a gun in everyone's hand and trains them to use it, no one in their country feels alone and not part of a societal structure? I like how its ok for you to blow off the facts that everyone has a gun and they have incredibly few incidences of gun violence, but its ok to speculate alternative reasons?

You're such a hypocrite. You put two facts together and call them correlated. THAT'S speculating. And you accuse some one of "blowing off facts" when in fact he has zero disagreement with either fact independently

It's less of a jump to think that there are actually multiple correlating factors between the two statistics as believe it or not when you have millions of people factoring in a statistic they actually might be different people with different reasons for behaving.

If you can point to a post where I blow off a fact, do so. I'm blowing off ignoramuses like yourself who think 1 factor controls the whole of a society's behavior.

And for the record, I'm for the second amendment, I'm just not in support of 1 dimensional thinkers.

 

[csi]

You're such a hypocrite. You put two facts together and call them correlated. THAT'S speculating. And you accuse some one of "blowing off facts" when in fact he has zero disagreement with either fact independently

It's less of a jump to think that there are actually multiple correlating factors between the two statistics as believe it or not when you have millions of people factoring in a statistic they actually might be different people with different reasons for behaving.

how are they not correlated? Isn't the premise of the left winged liberal take away their gun opinions, that the cause of all the gun violence is such an easy access to guns? So your shown a country were everyone has a gun and yet has almost no gun violence and say, well wait a second that doesn't disprove the theory. There has to be another reason for the lack of gun violence. I love the whole, they are not facts unless they back up our opinions mentality

 

[csi]

You're such a hypocrite. You put two facts together and call them correlated. THAT'S speculating. And you accuse some one of "blowing off facts" when in fact he has zero disagreement with either fact independently

It's less of a jump to think that there are actually multiple correlating factors between the two statistics as believe it or not when you have millions of people factoring in a statistic they actually might be different people with different reasons for behaving.

If you can point to a post where I blow off a fact, do so. I'm blowing off ignoramuses like yourself who think 1 factor controls the whole of a society's behavior.

And for the record, I'm for the second amendment, I'm just not in support of 1 dimensional thinkers.

btw, way to keep it classy

 

[ProgMatinee]

how are they not correlated? Isn't the premise of the left winged liberal take away their gun opinions, that the cause of all the gun violence is such an easy access to guns? So your shown a country were everyone has a gun and yet has almost no gun violence and say, well wait a second that doesn't disprove the theory. There has to be another reason for the lack of gun violence. I love the whole, they are not facts unless they back up our opinions mentality

Uh, that's not my belief. I'm in support of the second amendment and have no problem with more gun ownership.

My problem lies with the intellectual dishonesty in taking 2 statistics and saying that one stat is the sole reason that the other stat exists, even if I may support your position in general.

 

[csi]

Uh, that's not my belief. I'm in support of the second amendment and have no problem with more gun ownership.

My problem lies with the intellectual dishonesty in taking 2 statistics and saying that they are the sole reasons that one or the other statistics exist, even if I may support your point.

then you are simply looking for things to argue with. The post was in direct response to people who claim that things like the shooting are a direct correlation to guns being so easily available. It was just another example, in a long line of examples that have been presented, that demonstrates that easy access to guns is not the cause of things like this. Your point about intellectual dishonesty is a two way street. You can't say that everyone having guns is the sole reason there is gun violence.

 

[ProgMatinee]

then you are simply looking for things to argue with. The post was in direct response to people who claim that things like the shooting are a direct correlation to guns being so easily available. It was just another example, in a long line of examples that have been presented, that demonstrates that easy access to guns is not the cause of things like this. Your point about intellectual dishonesty is a two way street. You can't say that everyone having guns is the sole reason there is gun violence.

Dude, you're looking for stuff to argue as you directly quoted me with rubbish about me not liking facts when in actuality I never said such a thing. I'm looking for a conversation that's elevated past 1 dimensional thinking like a=b when in truth a+x*c/y-f=b.

And do me a favor and point to where I said the bold. My whole point is there is way more than 1 factor to this whole situation.

 

[csi]

Dude, you're looking for stuff to argue as you directly quoted me with rubbish about me not liking facts when in actuality I never said such a thing. I'm looking for a conversation that's elevated past 1 dimensional thinking like a=b when in truth a+x*c/y-f=b.

And do me a favor and point to where I said the bold. My whole point is there is way more than 1 factor to this whole situation.

the YOU in that statement was a general reference, as in an all encompassing group of people who share that belief, not in a ProgMatinee believes this kind of way. If your saying (referring to you this time) that the fact that everyone in a country has guns, and another fact, very little gun violence in said country are in no way related and are mutually exclusive of each other. Then the opposite should be true as well. The fact that guns are generally easy to obtain in our country, and there is gun violence in our country are also unrelated and two separate and exclusive facts.

 

[ProgMatinee]

If your saying (referring to you this time) that the fact that everyone in a country has guns, and another fact, very little gun violence in said country are in no way related and are mutually exclusive of each other.

BUT I'M NOT AND HAVE NEVER SAID THAT!

That's why I'm getting upset at you.

You think that just because I disagree with the logic of "a directly equals b" that I am saying "a has nothing to do with b".

Isn't it possible that a+x*c/y-f=b? Notice that the "a" and "b" are still in the equation, I'm not dismissing either.

Like most things in life and human condition, its complex. Isn't that more likely than a simple solution?

 

[devilof76]

That point to take from the picture is not that the guns in Switzerland are what prevents the violence. That inference is not available to be made on the basis of the two facts.

The only inference to be made is that despite the universal ownership of guns in Switzerland, gun violence is practically non-existent. In short, guns do not cause violence. To claim anything more than that is speculation, and requires more information, but based solely upon those two facts, the conclusion that guns do not cause violence is valid (and therefore true, assuming the facts are true). You don't need any further information.

 

[csi]

That point to take from the picture is not that the guns in Switzerland are what prevents the violence. That inference is not available to be made on the basis of the two facts.

The only inference to be made is that despite the universal ownership of guns in Switzerland, gun violence is practically non-existent. In short, guns do not cause violence. To claim anything more than that is speculation, and requires more information, but based solely upon those two facts, the conclusion that guns do not cause violence is valid (and therefore true, assuming the facts are true). You don't need any further information.

are you sure you didn't forget to take the square root of something and then divide it by the number of times a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear the sound.......

 

[ProgMatinee]

That point to take from the picture is not that the guns in Switzerland are what prevents the violence. That inference is not available to be made on the basis of the two facts.

The only inference to be made is that despite the universal ownership of guns in Switzerland, gun violence is practically non-existent. In short, guns do not cause violence. To claim anything more than that is speculation, and requires more information, but based solely upon those two facts, the conclusion that guns do not cause violence is valid (and therefore true, assuming the facts are true). You don't need any further information.

Nice post. I'm sure if i posted the same, csi would ____ on it as being complete lunacy because it didn't kowtow to wild leaps in logic.

 

[devilof76]

He ____ on it anyway.

 

[csi]

Nice post. I'm sure if i posted the same, csi would ____ on it as being complete lunacy because it didn't kowtow to wild leaps in logic.

actually Devil hit it right on the head. Same thing I was trying to explain to you for two pages. Amazing how you understood it coming from someone else

 

[csi]

He ____ on it anyway.

sorry, I was making light of phony mathematical equations posted earlier, not disagreeing with what you said.