10 dead in Oregon College Shooting

[Soldati Senza Confini]

all it takes is for me to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The same goes for pretty much any and all potential causes of death.

Yea, but when it comes to being in a college, I'd think that it is better for the college to NOT be "the wrong place at the wrong time".

I get it in a back alley in a deadbeat neighborhood in El Salvador where yea, I knew I could get killed, but in an institution where it is supposed that I'm going to study?

[Spirit of Hope]

You can certainly not carry one if you want to. Only about 4% of the US population has a concealed carry license, and they likely aren't all carrying all the time. In addition those that have concealed carry permits are some of the least likely to commit crimes with their guns (around 0.006%)

And of those 0.006% all it takes is for me to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I would be far more worried about the ~3,000,000 violent crimes every year than the ~700 total crimes committed by a person with a concealed carry permit.

[BK117B2]

That isn't a truthful statement. Why are you so unwilling to answer?

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

This was your question.

My answer is, I don't think that because someone of else's bad behavior the government passes a regulation on what I can and can't do means someone is punishing me.

It might not be the answer you expect as a yes/no; but rather saying your question doesn't make any sense to me.

That was ONE question.

So you basically view government action as mutually-exclusive with punishment. If government passes regulations restricting you to an internment camp...not punishment. If the government passes regulations prohibiting abortion....not punishment.

Then I would say our frames of reference are too different to have much reasonable dialogue, as we cannot even agree on fairly basic concepts.

[Modulus Operandi]

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

To make your claim, you have to assume it is a right to bear firearms. Hence taking away a firearm is a violation of rights.

But the argument Alyakia is making is not about whether taking away someones firearms is justifiable, the argument is in fact whether or not you should have the right to bear arms in the first place. Thus, it's not that he doesn't accept your argument, rather it's that he doesn't accept your premise.

[BK117B2]

It wasn't a reference to anything. I was going to discuss firearms after settling a couple basic issues, but you were so unwilling to answer or discuss my statements that we never got to that part.

we went straight to that part. but you decided you had to waste pages not bothering on the off chance i am actually literally north korea.

That's not truthful. You refused to get to that part. You preferred to spend numerous posts whining about a question rather than even one sentence to answer it.

[BK117B2]

There are a few people here who have a bad habit of creating those. Obviously not something over which I have any control

If you say so. Just be aware that the more you shout straw man the more it looks like you are the one avoiding the question.

Just not to any rational person. I asked the question

[BK117B2]

Which is utterly irrelevant to my post.

>there are multiple questions
>you only asked one

come the fuck on

That is not honest. I have asked you multiple questions. Why don't you just try being honest?

If you don't want to answer something, then just state as much (maybe even explain why) rather than lying about it.

[Alyakia]

we went straight to that part. but you decided you had to waste pages not bothering on the off chance i am actually literally north korea.

That's not truthful. You refused to get to that part. You preferred to spend numerous posts whining about a question rather than even one sentence to answer it.

it's because nobody fucking cares. we don't actually need to examine the hard hitting moral question of is collective punishment bad because your entire argument is fundamental based on the answer being yes. while it is possible that someone will answer the way you do not expect it is very unlikely. but despite this you kept going and finally got the answer everyone already knew was coming and then claimed there multiple questions when there weren't.

[Alyakia]

>there are multiple questions
>you only asked one

come the fuck on

That is not honest. I have asked you multiple questions. Why don't you just try being honest?

If you don't want to answer something, then just state as much (maybe even explain why) rather than lying about it.

this entire argument has been over the answer to one question. if you can quote another question then show how it is obliviously tied to that as well then be my guest.

[BK117B2]

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

To make your claim, you have to assume it is a right to bear firearms. Hence taking away a firearm is a violation of rights.

But the argument Alyakia is making is not about whether taking away someones firearms is justifiable, the argument is in fact whether or not you should have the right to bear arms in the first place. Thus, it's not that he doesn't accept your argument, rather it's that he doesn't accept your premise.

You do not have to have a right to something for there to exist punishment.

[Alyakia]

To make your claim, you have to assume it is a right to bear firearms. Hence taking away a firearm is a violation of rights.

But the argument Alyakia is making is not about whether taking away someones firearms is justifiable, the argument is in fact whether or not you should have the right to bear arms in the first place. Thus, it's not that he doesn't accept your argument, rather it's that he doesn't accept your premise.

You do not have to have a right to something for there to exist punishment.

wow, who is talking about firearms or taking them away? i thought it was a general question?

[BK117B2]

That's not truthful. You refused to get to that part. You preferred to spend numerous posts whining about a question rather than even one sentence to answer it.

it's because nobody fucking cares. we don't actually need to examine the hard hitting moral question of is collective punishment bad because your entire argument is fundamental based on the answer being yes. while it is possible that someone will answer the way you do not expect it is very unlikely. but despite this you kept going and finally got the answer everyone already knew was coming and then claimed there multiple questions when there weren't.

I'm not really interested in your refusal to be honest. Let me know if you're ever ready for an honest discussion instead. I'll be around.

[BK117B2]

You do not have to have a right to something for there to exist punishment.

wow, who is talking about firearms or taking them away? i thought it was a general question?

Modulus just did. My question was general, but that isn't currently what is being discussed, so why do you ask?

[Aelex]

I'm not really interested in your refusal to be honest. Let me know if you're ever ready for an honest discussion instead. I'll be around.

Ok c'mon guy, we're starting to know you now. You're not simply refusing honest discussion but rather fleeing them like plague. Your persecution syndrome and lack of understanding of what a strawman is are just another proof of that.

[BK117B2]

I'm not really interested in your refusal to be honest. Let me know if you're ever ready for an honest discussion instead. I'll be around.

Ok c'mon guy, we're starting to know you now. You're not simply refusing honest discussion but rather fleeing them like plague. Your persecution syndrome and lack of understanding of what a strawman is are just another proof of that.

I see you're still in your habit of refusing to discuss the topic. Apparently you're still upset that your decision to insult others rather than discuss got you unwelcome attention.

[North Calaveras]

So when will potus give a speech when it comes to people saving lives with guns, there are olenty of examples yet we dont see him up there giving a speech.

[Alyakia]

it's because nobody fucking cares. we don't actually need to examine the hard hitting moral question of is collective punishment bad because your entire argument is fundamental based on the answer being yes. while it is possible that someone will answer the way you do not expect it is very unlikely. but despite this you kept going and finally got the answer everyone already knew was coming and then claimed there multiple questions when there weren't.

I'm not really interested in your refusal to be honest. Let me know if you're ever ready for an honest discussion instead. I'll be around.

see this is why this is so fucking stupid. i already answered, twice. you say there were other questions but cannot show them or prove they were part of the argument.

[BK117B2]

I'm not really interested in your refusal to be honest. Let me know if you're ever ready for an honest discussion instead. I'll be around.

see this is why this is so fucking stupid. i already answered, twice. you say there were other questions but cannot show them or prove they were part of the argument.

By not telling the truth, you demonstrate that you are not yet ready. I'll still be around if you ever ARE ready

[Alyakia]

see this is why this is so fucking stupid. i already answered, twice. you say there were other questions but cannot show them or prove they were part of the argument.

By not telling the truth, you demonstrate that you are not yet ready. I'll still be around if you ever ARE ready

which bit is not truthful?

don't you think it's weird that the two only other people to weigh in on this specific argument agree with me?

[Xanatau]

Americans have always owned guns. Some of the original 13 states even mandated that householders own a gun and have it ready to use.

White male dominance on the decline.

Sorry to break the bad news, but the shooter was a high yella.

[BK117B2]

which bit is not truthful?

Why don't you try answering the question asked, instead of inventing your own to answer?

[BK117B2]

don't you think it's weird that the two only other people to weigh in on this specific argument agree with me?

About what, the answer to the question about justification for punishment? That wouldn't be weird. It's the same as my position on the issue, and probably the same position the majority of people take.

[Alyakia]

which bit is not truthful?

Why don't you try answering the question asked, instead of inventing your own to answer?

so you're accepting that guns being widely available contributes to these kinds of incidents?

We don't have much evidence of that, though it is a reasonable hypothesis. We do have proof that the non-existence of something prevents its use.

Do you think someone else's bad behavior justifies punishing you?

So you are again making up falsehoods about what you know. I notice the fact that you still refuse to answer even a simple question in favor of whining, creating straw men, and then whining some more about the results of your own choices

how about this: we know you were about to make it because you literally just made it 5-6 posts above.

the answer is no. now this is the hard part. do not make the argument that not letting people have guns is punishment (like you did above) or else you will have proven me completely right (again). have fun!

So you still will not answer.

the answer is no. it was a yes/no question. i literally gave you answer. go back and read.

[Hydesland]

So there seems to be some controversy over the board /r9k/, not only because the shooter posted there as everyone now knows, but because of the subsequent reactions of posters on that board which has exposed them all as being edge-lord wankers.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

54 posts in and already too world weary to make a stand. Amazing.

It doesn't mean I began talking politics when I joined NationStates, it was long before that.

I'm actually with you on this one. When there was no movement after Sandy Hook Elementary, when small children were massacred, then I lost hope of anything inspiring people to demand change in how we see guns in this society. This certainly won't, though it'll likely feed into the narrative that some Christians have about being a targeted and oppressed group. I"m done.