HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i take this to mean that the two of you won't politicize anymore attacks or violence, based around the skin color or belief system of the attacker?

What do you mean by politicize? Will I call for gun bans while they are still carrying bodies away like those scumbags? No.

no, you're a conservative. i know you won't politicize it the same way that a liberal would.

So how would I politicize it while they are still carrying the bodies away like liberals did?

i hope you won't. but you've looked to further an agenda, when shit has happened in the past. muslim ban, immigration reform. blm. etc.

Tell me one time I have used a tragedy to try to strip rights of citizens, let alone with 24 hours of it.

i don't recall you trying to strip rights from american citizens, but that's not what i said. you have used incidents, not long after happening, to further justify your bias'. instead of it just being a tragedy, you find a way to politicize it. and that's not all the time but it does happen. and i'm sure i've done that too, but i'm not pointing out in others, as something they shouldn't do.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:it's not honesty, it's a stock response? nice to see what you apparently think of me.

you said the media was doing that, not just stupid commenters on facebook or wherever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

and she was fired rightfully so. i don't know what else to say, cause you won't believe it's genuine anyway.

You do realize why an intelligent woman in that field felt so comfortable making such a statement, right? Because she knew so many others were thinking it.

there are some public figures that do probably feel that way, yeah. fuck them. fuck them too, when it's republicans saying "muslim? gay? serves them right."

Foo wrote:Would you say it is more likely Hillary Clinton is a soulless ghoul or an evil demon?

i like ghouls and demons too much to answer that.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i take this to mean that the two of you won't politicize anymore attacks or violence, based around the skin color or belief system of the attacker?

What do you mean by politicize? Will I call for gun bans while they are still carrying bodies away like those scumbags? No.

no, you're a conservative. i know you won't politicize it the same way that a liberal would.

So how would I politicize it while they are still carrying the bodies away like liberals did?

i hope you won't. but you've looked to further an agenda, when shit has happened in the past. muslim ban, immigration reform. blm. etc.

Tell me one time I have used a tragedy to try to strip rights of citizens, let alone with 24 hours of it.

i don't recall you trying to strip rights from american citizens, but that's not what i said. you have used incidents, not long after happening, to further justify your bias'. instead of it just being a tragedy, you find a way to politicize it. and that's not all the time but it does happen. and i'm sure i've done that too, but i'm not pointing out in others, as something they shouldn't do.

If I am not using my statements to take away the rights of citizens, am I really doing anything bad?

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:it's not honesty, it's a stock response? nice to see what you apparently think of me.

you said the media was doing that, not just stupid commenters on facebook or wherever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

and she was fired rightfully so. i don't know what else to say, cause you won't believe it's genuine anyway.

You do realize why an intelligent woman in that field felt so comfortable making such a statement, right? Because she knew so many others were thinking it.

there are some public figures that do probably feel that way, yeah. fuck them. fuck them too, when it's republicans saying "muslim? gay? serves them right."

I don't recall such instances.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i take this to mean that the two of you won't politicize anymore attacks or violence, based around the skin color or belief system of the attacker?

What do you mean by politicize? Will I call for gun bans while they are still carrying bodies away like those scumbags? No.

no, you're a conservative. i know you won't politicize it the same way that a liberal would.

So how would I politicize it while they are still carrying the bodies away like liberals did?

i hope you won't. but you've looked to further an agenda, when shit has happened in the past. muslim ban, immigration reform. blm. etc.

Tell me one time I have used a tragedy to try to strip rights of citizens, let alone with 24 hours of it.

i don't recall you trying to strip rights from american citizens, but that's not what i said. you have used incidents, not long after happening, to further justify your bias'. instead of it just being a tragedy, you find a way to politicize it. and that's not all the time but it does happen. and i'm sure i've done that too, but i'm not pointing out in others, as something they shouldn't do.

If I am not using my statements to take away the rights of citizens, am I really doing anything bad?

looking for trump to call this a terrorist attack is not taking away rights. celebrating people being killed cause their trump supporters, or because the fucker wasn't muslim is not taking away rights. is it bad though? you tell me.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:it's not honesty, it's a stock response? nice to see what you apparently think of me.

you said the media was doing that, not just stupid commenters on facebook or wherever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

and she was fired rightfully so. i don't know what else to say, cause you won't believe it's genuine anyway.

You do realize why an intelligent woman in that field felt so comfortable making such a statement, right? Because she knew so many others were thinking it.

there are some public figures that do probably feel that way, yeah. fuck them. fuck them too, when it's republicans saying "muslim? gay? serves them right."

I don't recall such instances.

i saw it on my facebook feed after the orlando shooting. granted not media. so you have me there.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i take this to mean that the two of you won't politicize anymore attacks or violence, based around the skin color or belief system of the attacker?

What do you mean by politicize? Will I call for gun bans while they are still carrying bodies away like those scumbags? No.

no, you're a conservative. i know you won't politicize it the same way that a liberal would.

So how would I politicize it while they are still carrying the bodies away like liberals did?

i hope you won't. but you've looked to further an agenda, when shit has happened in the past. muslim ban, immigration reform. blm. etc.

Tell me one time I have used a tragedy to try to strip rights of citizens, let alone with 24 hours of it.

i don't recall you trying to strip rights from american citizens, but that's not what i said. you have used incidents, not long after happening, to further justify your bias'. instead of it just being a tragedy, you find a way to politicize it. and that's not all the time but it does happen. and i'm sure i've done that too, but i'm not pointing out in others, as something they shouldn't do.

If I am not using my statements to take away the rights of citizens, am I really doing anything bad?

looking for trump to call this a terrorist attack is not taking away rights. celebrating people being killed cause their trump supporters, or because the fucker wasn't muslim is not taking away rights. is it bad though? you tell me.

There are numerous Democrats using last night's shooting to take away the rights of citizens. Have never seen that from Republicans.

Democrats are even comparing their lust to take away constitutional rights to the President telling people to stand for the anthem, despite the fact he did not try to take away their rights.

Foo wrote:
There are numerous Democrats using last night's shooting to take away the rights of citizens. Have never seen that from Republicans.

Democrats are even comparing their lust to take away constitutional rights to the President telling people to stand for the anthem, despite the fact he did not try to take away their rights.

and if it does come from republicans, it'll be excused or defended around here.

i'm not those democrats. a lot of people have wacky stupid opinions. right now, liberals and democrats have a bigger platform to voice their views, crazy stupid or not.

Why can’t you talk about guns after a gun tragedy? No other tragedy gets a free pass. Hell Fox is talking about Hotel Checkins after the event. So they are ready to talk about the cause and how to fix the problem, just not this problem. Fucking weird. Like if an airplane crashed due to faulty landing gear, nobody, and I mean nobody, would say “it’s too soon to discuss airplane inspections and safety checks”. Same if a bridge collapsed. Nobody would go “it’s too soon to talk about infrastructure.”

I can think of no better time to talk about gun control and the obvious irrefutable need for it than when a non-criminal somehow amasses enough firepower to take on a whole police force, likely legally, and kills 58 and injures 200+ people. Now is exactly when you should talk about the gun issue because now is when it’s relevant and correct. To not because “it’s political” is a childish and cowardly way to respond about it.

everything i've heard is that the guns were not automatic when he purchased them initially. that he had someone modify them illegally, or modified them himself, again illegally. maybe we need better regulation but we do not need to take away guns altogether, which is what is always pushed for. assholes and fucktards will find a way to be assholes and fucktards. with cars, with guns, or with words. punish the fucktards. don't punish everybody.

but pointing out that someone is politicizing a tragedy is also politicizing that tragedy, just so we're all on the same page here.

I want tragedies politicized. What’s the point of tip-toeing around the issue. Not like Foo and Jason don’t do it.

zombie wrote:everything i've heard is that the guns were not automatic when he purchased them initially. that he had someone modify them illegally, or modified them himself, again illegally. maybe we need better regulation but we do not need to take away guns altogether, which is what is always pushed for. assholes and fucktards will find a way to be assholes and fucktards. with cars, with guns, or with words. punish the fucktards. don't punish everybody.

but pointing out that someone is politicizing a tragedy is also politicizing that tragedy, just so we're all on the same page here.

But he's still an accountant with 18 rifles and thousands of ammo clips. I mean, does that not concern you? Even if you accept the rifles, why would someone need that much ammunition over a short period of time. It gets back to another obvious point, that there should be tons and tons of sales and registration and other key datapoints to help with all of this. It isn't about removing every gun from every person always. It's about finding a sensible balance between your obsession with stupid fucking guns, and the safety of your citizens, at this point.

Take your example of cars, a very good example. Are there not: Permits required and training to be able to operate one. Laws in place to ensure vehicles are identifiable and linked to an owner through registration. Limits on how and where you can use one. Laws and regulations around annual car check-ups, taxes, registrations. And would there not be a consequence, if someone was found mentally deficient or sight impaired or whatever, with regards to their right to buy, own, and operate that vehicle?

That doesn't mean people can't own a car. But it accepts the massive responsibility and devastating harm one can cause with it, and that actually has a purpose.

you seem to be suggesting that there is no regulation. no licensing or permitting, no background checks, no serial numbers on the items. etc? that comes with purchase of more standard firearms. so i have to assume that it's more heavily regulated and controlled with higher caliber weapons.

can you not steal a car? can you not borrow a car from someone else? can you not take the license plate off of a car? etc. there are always going to be ways to remove identification or make identification and tracking it down harder. the same is true of guns. did he need so many guns though? probably not. but we don't know how he actually obtained them. what steps he took to get them. how he had them modified. etc.

zombie wrote:you seem to be suggesting that there is no regulation. no licensing or permitting, no background checks, no serial numbers on the items. etc? that comes with purchase of more standard firearms. so i have to assume that it's more heavily regulated and controlled with higher caliber weapons.

can you not steal a car? can you not borrow a car from someone else? can you not take the license plate off of a car? etc. there are always going to be ways to remove identification or make identification and tracking it down harder. the same is true of guns. did he need so many guns though? probably not. but we don't know how he actually obtained them. what steps he took to get them. how he had them modified. etc.

I'm saying that whatever you're doing, you're not doing enough of it, if the results are as catastrophic as this.

And yeah, sure, there's plenty of one-offs that will mean you are never 100% free from risk whatever happens. But that's not a reason to not have laws and regulations on this stuff. By the sounds of it, they think he bought them legally in Nevada, which has extremely lax gun laws, and then modified them with legal modifications and accessories available over the counter.

And it is so weird given that everyone else responds to these things with changes. Australia, massacre, gun control and tightening of laws, decrease in gun deaths. Scotland, massacre, gun laws, massive decrease in gun deaths. Oslo, massacre, gun control, decrease in gun-related deaths.

Like, if it was a case of "who knows what'll happen if we get rid of these things" then I might get the reticence, but instead you have many examples of effective legal recourse reducing the problem significantly.

And also, people saying "it can't stop all of them" but why is that suddenly the standard? Like you can't make things "better" without it being perfect. Either it has to eliminate ALL gun crime and keep EVERYONE safe, or else we should do nothing... Like, how is that a thing?

you're the one that expects crime to not happen. "whatever you're doing, you're not doing enough" <-- is that to mean that you think some small level of homicide by gun is acceptable? no, of course not. we do have regulations. we do have laws in place. could it be better? definitely. but that is not what is being pushed for. whenever gun control comes up, it is about removing all legal access to guns (at least for the general public) as if that will put an end to these tragedies.

zombie wrote:you're the one that expects crime to not happen. "whatever you're doing, you're not doing enough" <-- is that to mean that you think some small level of homicide by gun is acceptable? no, of course not. we do have regulations. we do have laws in place. could it be better? definitely. but that is not what is being pushed for. whenever gun control comes up, it is about removing all legal access to guns (at least for the general public) as if that will put an end to these tragedies.

I'm saying that mass shootings in 2017 for you guys are at something like 221 for the year, being defined as a firearm related homicide of 4 or more individuals. That is more than just about everywhere else. These kind of mass shootings of 10+ people are the kind of things remembered for a generation in Europe or Asia. You've had multiple ones in a single year at times, and have had a number of them in each Presidency. You're definitely failing, and you're failing because you are unwilling to have a realistic conversation about what effective and efficient gun control and limits on weapons can be, because of a law about muskets in 1778.

Also, every conversation I've seen about gun control is always about grey zones. I have yet to see a single politician, democrat or republican or libertarian, that literally says that ALL guns must be removed from EVERY citizen for ANY reason. That would be total removal of all legal access. I've seen plenty of "Assault rifles should be banned" "background checks should be mandatory" "waiting times for purchases should be 60 days" "files on guns should be computerized, not a paper-based database because of NRA influence" "ban on certain types of ammunition"

See how many fixes there are to these problems. Ultimately, maybe you should ban all people from buying any gun, but there's plenty of steps to get there which your pathetic gun-toting cowboy clowns should be able to stomach.

Seb, did you know murder is already illegal and highly regulated? Why does it still happen?

Foo wrote:Seb, did you know murder is already illegal and highly regulated? Why does it still happen?

Because the access to things that allow you to murder faster and in greater numbers is not sufficiently well-regulated.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Seb, did you know murder is already illegal and highly regulated? Why does it still happen?

Because the access to things that allow you to murder faster and in greater numbers is not sufficiently well-regulated.

The business atom marathon bombers used cookware. Others have used common hardware store items. Others have used fuel.

Funny how liberals want all these regulations, but fight common sense policing like stop and frisk.